The Weird, Wacky and Awesome World of the NFL - General Banter thread V2

spud06 · 13-12-2017 03:34PM

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman wrote: »

personally delighted. Love watching Rodgers play.

Couldnt agree more

D9Male · 13-12-2017 05:56PM

I will never understand Packers fans.

OldMrBrennan83 · 13-12-2017 06:06PM

This post has been deleted.

Foxtrol · 13-12-2017 07:03PM

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You have the chance to make the play-offs and from there who knows what could happen. Many fans of other teams would bite your hand off for that opportunity.

You guarantee nothing by benching him - not a better player in the draft (you could draft 5 picks earlier and end up with a worse player), not that the coach/GM will be fired (they already have the Rodgers excuse), not that Rodgers will be healthy next season (could get injured in camp).

I know having your team as a regular to make the play-offs might change a person’s perspective, but I don’t think there’s ever justification to hope your team gives up on a season when there is still a chance.

OldMrBrennan83 · 13-12-2017 07:09PM

This post has been deleted.

Christy42 · 13-12-2017 07:20PM

Foxtrol wrote: »

You have the chance to make the play-offs and from there who knows what could happen. Many fans of other teams would bite your hand off for that opportunity.

You guarantee nothing by benching him - not a better player in the draft (you could draft 5 picks earlier and end up with a worse player), not that the coach/GM will be fired (they already have the Rodgers excuse), not that Rodgers will be healthy next season (could get injured in camp).

I know having your team as a regular to make the play-offs might change a person’s perspective, but I don’t think there’s ever justification to hope your team gives up on a season when there is still a chance.

You guarantee nothing by playing him. If he is 100% then play him. Anything short and you increase the risk of injury without much potential benefit. I don't like tanking but I also think you need to be careful bringing players back from injury.

Foxtrol · 13-12-2017 07:41PM

Christy42 wrote: »

You guarantee nothing by playing him. If he is 100% then play him. Anything short and you increase the risk of injury without much potential benefit. I don't like tanking but I also think you need to be careful bringing players back from injury.

How can you say it isn't for much benefit? They could make the play-offs.

It isn't in their hands but there's a reasonable chance that they get the results elsewhere to get them there. We aren't talking about needing the Browns or Colts to beat a team. Presuming the Packers do their job they need two of -

Seahawks to lose to either - Dallas at home with a fired up Zek or the Rams
Panthers to lose to the Falcons
Falcons to lose to both Saints and Panthers

That isn't even including one of the totally unlikely outcomes we've seen in games this season.

Christy42 · 13-12-2017 11:32PM

Foxtrol wrote: »

How can you say it isn't for much benefit? They could make the play-offs.

It isn't in their hands but there's a reasonable chance that they get the results elsewhere to get them there. We aren't talking about needing the Browns or Colts to beat a team. Presuming the Packers do their job they need two of -
Seahawks to lose to either - Dallas at home with a fired up Zek or the Rams

Panthers to lose to the Falcons

Falcons to lose to both Saints and Panthers

That isn't even including one of the totally unlikely outcomes we've seen in games this season.

Will anyone remember that they made the play offs? They seem pretty long shots for the SB right now. That should be the goal of any team capable of fielding Aaron Rodgers.

If Rodgers is at increased risk the next few games then the play offs are an incredibly low return for that.

Realt Dearg Sec · 14-12-2017 12:11AM

Christy42 wrote: »

Foxtrol wrote: »

How can you say it isn't for much benefit? They could make the play-offs.

It isn't in their hands but there's a reasonable chance that they get the results elsewhere to get them there. We aren't talking about needing the Browns or Colts to beat a team. Presuming the Packers do their job they need two of -
Seahawks to lose to either - Dallas at home with a fired up Zek or the Rams

Panthers to lose to the Falcons

Falcons to lose to both Saints and Panthers

That isn't even including one of the totally unlikely outcomes we've seen in games this season.

Will anyone remember that they made the play offs? They seem pretty long shots for the SB right now. That should be the goal of any team capable of fielding Aaron Rodgers.

.

Well whatever hope they have if winning the SB if they're in the playoffs, they haven't much hope of winning it if they're not. There seems to be some kind of assumption here that if ye kick out the current coaches ye will definitely be better. Next year Rodgers could get a season ending injury in week one, or a career ending one God forbid. The replacement coaches could be terrible, you haven't a clue what might happen but being in playoff contention is not a guarantee for any team into the future, so you have to how for the best with the opportunities your team has right now, with a once in a lifetime QB ready to lead ye. Not wanting to be in a playoff so that you can get better coaches or protect Rodgers for an uncertain future is the definition of taking your success for granted.

TOss Sweep · 14-12-2017 12:19AM

Ask Aaron Rodgers what he wants to do and he will tell you he wants to be on the field taking a shot at the playoffs.

Christy42 · 14-12-2017 07:18AM

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Well whatever hope they have if winning the SB if they're in the playoffs, they haven't much hope of winning it if they're not. There seems to be some kind of assumption here that if ye kick out the current coaches ye will definitely be better. Next year Rodgers could get a season ending injury in week one, or a career ending one God forbid. The replacement coaches could be terrible, you haven't a clue what might happen but being in playoff contention is not a guarantee for any team into the future, so you have to how for the best with the opportunities your team has right now, with a once in a lifetime QB ready to lead ye. Not wanting to be in a playoff so that you can get better coaches or protect Rodgers for an uncertain future is the definition of taking your success for granted.

Sure he could get injured next season. I was making the point if it is more likely this season. Everyone says next season has no guarantees. Well neither does this season. All you can do is play the odds.

I was not even talking about different coaches. I was just talking about ensuring that your star qb is at full health before risking them on a long shot. I already said if he is 100% he plays.

14-12-2017 09:22AM

TOss Sweep wrote: »

Ask Aaron Rodgers what he wants to do and he will tell you he wants to be on the field taking a shot at the playoffs.

I'm sure rg3 said the same but if the docther have legit cleared him there's not mjch point in holding back

OldMrBrennan83 · 14-12-2017 10:08AM

This post has been deleted.

Billy86 · 14-12-2017 11:00AM

Christy42 wrote: »

Will anyone remember that they made the play offs? They seem pretty long shots for the SB right now. That should be the goal of any team capable of fielding Aaron Rodgers.

If Rodgers is at increased risk the next few games then the play offs are an incredibly low return for that.

Yeah and no... the Rams would worry me because of how multi-faceted and explosive they are (quite similar to last years Falcons) but outside of that and Atlanta for the same reason, I think since Wentz went down the match ups could favour us quite a bit.

I also have been saying throughout that our defense is not as bad as made out and a big factor has been getting worn out by our useless offense not staying on the field at all - they've been giving up less than 10pts on average in first halves (it would probably be less that 7 if not for 1-2 TDs right at the end of some of the halves) since Rodgers went down, though CB being depleted again might make that a moot point.

Either way, so long as there are a lot of changes made to the staff if we fail to get there it's win/win for me in that sense.

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman · 14-12-2017 11:06AM

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Lets say the worse case scenario happens and he play and breaks the collar bone again. Unless it's a freak injury he's not going to miss any preseason next year, at very worst he's injured till March. If he gets a different injury well that could happen at any time.

The packers have a shot now and with Rodgers leading them they'll always be a tough out in any potential playoff game. I would say risk to reward it's worth putting Rodgers out there.

TOss Sweep · 14-12-2017 04:17PM

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No difference between chancing it now or waiting until next year. Could walk in front of a bus tomorrow and be done for good. Sometimes in life we have to make the hard decisions of what is more important and no live by the what ifs.

In my opinion the Packer would be fools not to play him now because we dont know what will happen next year and you got to do what you feel is best now. If doctors clear him and he feels good then holding him back until next season is counter productive for everyone involved.

TOss Sweep · 14-12-2017 04:20PM

Clementine Scary String wrote: »

I'm sure rg3 said the same but if the docther have legit cleared him there's not mjch point in holding back

Oh I know but we all know Franchises treat players differently based on their level of ability and you know the Packers and Rodgers most likely have had this chat.

But I agree if he is medically cleared if would be pointless not taking a shot at the playoffs with him

OldMrBrennan83 · 14-12-2017 04:53PM

This post has been deleted.

TOss Sweep · 14-12-2017 05:01PM

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The point of what I said went over your head as it is all the unknown you nor I know what will happen next year so why plan for the unknown.

Besides you say gimpy shoulder but the doctors, the Packers and Rodger would all disagree and they passed him fit to play and from the looks of him throwing pre game the last couple of weeks his throwing motion looks solid.

Unless you are a doctor or have information the Packers and the rest of us dont it seems like the right idea to put him back on the roster and back in the game if he is medically cleared to play. They obviously feel he can do his job and the shoulder wont be an issue. The getting hurt thing is a risk every player take regardless of current or past injuries.

adrian522 · 14-12-2017 05:03PM

Nobody's sole aim is to have Rodgers miss 2018.

Secondly, I haven't seen any credible evidence that Rodgers playing now is any more risky than any other player (i.e his injury has healed and his doctors are happy for him to play and therefore there is no need to hold him out any longer).

Realt Dearg Sec · 14-12-2017 05:40PM

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What?

OldMrBrennan83 · 14-12-2017 05:43PM

This post has been deleted.

adrian522 · 14-12-2017 05:46PM

Why would they sit him if he is not injured? Also the Vikings sole aim will be to get to the playoffs, preferably with a first round bye.

Realt Dearg Sec · 14-12-2017 05:56PM

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There is no reason whatsoever to assume they'll lose to Carolina this week. Carolina lost to Chicago ffs, you never know what fcuking team they're going to send out each week.

Saying there's no love lost and that they were strutting around (they won the game comprehensively, is it not more likely they were crowing and strutting about that?).

Injuries happen in football, if they were PURELY going out to injure him that would be very easy to do, any player can very easily injure someone deliberately in this game...

EDIT: Is the trolling too obvious here...?

Christy42 · 14-12-2017 05:57PM

TOss Sweep wrote: »

The point of what I said went over your head as it is all the unknown you nor I know what will happen next year so why plan for the unknown.

Besides you say gimpy shoulder but the doctors, the Packers and Rodger would all disagree and they passed him fit to play and from the looks of him throwing pre game the last couple of weeks his throwing motion looks solid.

Unless you are a doctor or have information the Packers and the rest of us dont it seems like the right idea to put him back on the roster and back in the game if he is medically cleared to play. They obviously feel he can do his job and the shoulder wont be an issue. The getting hurt thing is a risk every player take regardless of current or past injuries.

Again it depends if the doctor thinks that there is an increased risk. There is a difference between not at an increased risk of injury and medically fit. Plenty of coaches would play players when they should not to save their skin, even if it hurts the team long term.

My main thinking is if the Packers would be happy to play Rodgers if thry had no hope of the play offs they should play him now. As you say we do not have his medical files but neither do you. Players play through injury all the time and at increased risk to themselves.

To take an example from a different sport Murray played Wimbledon this year while injured because he did not want to miss it. Had it been a minor competition he would have not played while injured. Playing seems to have delayed his return from injury.

Everyone deals with unknowns and plans for them. This is why players like Mahomes are on the KC roster. He won't do much this year and may well get hit by a bus without a snap. They still made a long term call over a short term one.

Unknown stuff is why people play the odds.

Foxtrol · 14-12-2017 07:44PM

Christy42 wrote: »

Again it depends if the doctor thinks that there is an increased risk. There is a difference between not at an increased risk of injury and medically fit. Plenty of coaches would play players when they should not to save their skin, even if it hurts the team long term.

My main thinking is if the Packers would be happy to play Rodgers if thry had no hope of the play offs they should play him now. As you say we do not have his medical files but neither do you. Players play through injury all the time and at increased risk to themselves.

To take an example from a different sport Murray played Wimbledon this year while injured because he did not want to miss it. Had it been a minor competition he would have not played while injured. Playing seems to have delayed his return from injury.

Everyone deals with unknowns and plans for them. This is why players like Mahomes are on the KC roster. He won't do much this year and may well get hit by a bus without a snap. They still made a long term call over a short term one.

Unknown stuff is why people play the odds.

But what is his increased risk? This isn't rushing an ACL, if the concern is that he may re-break his collar bone it would just be another relatively short term injury. Not all injuries hold the same long term implications which is why posters mentioning RG3 are dealing in hyperbole.

The 49ers made a similar call when drafting Foster. Some teams were worried his shoulder hadn't healed correctly after off-season surgery but when they asked their doctors what the worst case would be if his shoulder hadn't and were told it would just mean repeating the surgery again and having him out for another few months. It wasn't a long term risk.

Also, teams drafting a hoped to be successor for their QB is completely different to holding out their star player when they could still make the playoffs. Nothing alike.

OldMrBrennan83 · 14-12-2017 07:48PM

This post has been deleted.

jack presley · 14-12-2017 07:58PM

Nothing to do with what's going on at the moment but amusing nonetheless

https://twitter.com/fg_dolan/status/939963723917250560

TOss Sweep · 14-12-2017 08:04PM

Christy42 wrote: »

Again it depends if the doctor thinks that there is an increased risk. There is a difference between not at an increased risk of injury and medically fit. Plenty of coaches would play players when they should not to save their skin, even if it hurts the team long term.

But none of us know any of this and all we know is that he was passed fit medically to play. So anything more than that is mere speculation. The Doctors passed him fit. The Packers are happy to play him and from what it seems Rodgers wants to play. That is all that matters here.

My main thinking is if the Packers would be happy to play Rodgers if thry had no hope of the play offs they should play him now. As you say we do not have his medical files but neither do you. Players play through injury all the time and at increased risk to themselves.

That is their call as his employer.

To take an example from a different sport Murray played Wimbledon this year while injured because he did not want to miss it. Had it been a minor competition he would have not played while injured. Playing seems to have delayed his return from injury.

Dont know anything about and also dont know the history of his doctors and if they passed him fit so I wont comment.

Everyone deals with unknowns and plans for them. This is why players like Mahomes are on the KC roster. He won't do much this year and may well get hit by a bus without a snap. They still made a long term call over a short term one.

I am not talking about planning for the future here. Every team does that with or without injury to players. Every team has a backup plan and plans for the eventual need for the team. The unknown I am referring to are the what ifs, what if he gets injured, what if we sit him and keep him on IR, what if we play him where does that leave us in 2018. Those what ifs. Very few sports teams live by those what ifs when it comes to injury especially when doctors or the medical profession give the green light.

Unknown stuff is why people play the odds.

You dont say.

Knex* · 14-12-2017 08:59PM

jack presley wrote: »

Nothing to do with what's going on at the moment but amusing nonetheless

https://twitter.com/fg_dolan/status/939963723917250560

Something that annoys me too, tbh. Like the amount of times the tip of the ball touches the plane, and then gets slapped away or dropped, and then its a TD.

It's too far removed from the catch equivalent. Need a balance.

The Weird, Wacky and Awesome World of the NFL - General Banter thread V2

Comments