1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!

    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers. You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
    Dismiss Notice

Getting Aaron some playing time

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by Zombieslayer, Nov 16, 2007.

  1. Zombieslayer

    Zombieslayer Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    Messages:
    4,338
    Ratings:
    +0
    This is one of my pet peeves with the new NFL. Everyone is too politically correct to hurt anyone's delicate sensibilities by "running up the score," so they waste game time running the ball.

    Screw that. When we take a lead that we know there's no way for opposing teams to come back from, we should be putting Aaron in and getting him some playing time.

    Yes, I think Brett Favre will be back next year, even if we win the SB this year. That's not the point. The point is Brett Favre won't be around forever and Aaron Rodgers is our heir.

    The other thing, when Aaron is in there, I don't want to see "safe" passes and running plays. I want to see Aaron taking shots downfield. That's what he needs real game time for.

    My point is not to rub it in our opposing team's faces. It's getting Aaron valuable time by throwing the ball, and getting him some chemistry with our receivers.

    I hope to see Aaron in there in the 4th quarter with a comfortable lead against the Panthers and actually throwing the ball down field to WRs.
     
  2. tromadz

    tromadz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    I kinda talked about that here.

    Didn't go too well. Taking Favre out is apparently punishable by death. I just want Favre to be healthy for the playoffs and not injured in some week 14 game.

    Do you think an A-rod led team could beat the oh-so-mighty Raiders? Rams? I sure think those are wins and not worth the risk of losing Favre off some cheap shot.
     
  3. Zombieslayer

    Zombieslayer Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    Messages:
    4,338
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yes, and I think it would be a good idea to sit Favre in the 2nd half, once we lock up homefield advantage. Start Favre, but let Rodgers finish. And yes, Rodgers should be able to beat the Raiders and the Rams.

    I'd also rest Grant in the 2nd half as well. I want that guy healthy for the playoffs.
     
  4. johnny_blood

    johnny_blood Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Messages:
    254
    Ratings:
    +0
    Tromadz, what difference does it make what team we are playing? If the lead is huge, it's huge. I don't see how our being favored against those teams matters. Or are you saying Brett should be yanked early in those games no matter what the lead, because Rodgers should be able to beat them? With that I surely disagree.

    If the Packers have a gigantic lead, then Rodgers should play and try to score. That is what I agree with. Nobody disagreed with that in the other thread.

    Coasting into the playoffs after locking up HFA makes no sense to me. If you get HFA you got it because the players and chemistry are working. So you keep that momentum going, you don't write off the end of the season as less meaningful than the beginning. You don't limp into the playoffs like the #1 seed '96 Broncos.
     
  5. brennan1884

    brennan1884 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Messages:
    841
    Ratings:
    +0
    Favre aint sittin no where besides on the turf after a hit unless we have a HUGE lead..... this home field advantage race could come all the way down to week 17, its gonna be a nail bighter for sure
     
  6. Zombieslayer

    Zombieslayer Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    Messages:
    4,338
    Ratings:
    +0
    No. I should have been more clear. I meant when the lead was insurmountable. Then you yank Favre and put in Rodgers. But don't play conservative. You have Rodgers throw the ball, and not passes that anyone on the forum can throw, but real passes.

    Doing this, you kill 2 birds with one stone:
    1) You get Aaron valuable playing time,
    2) You protect Favre's health.

    Say we make it to the Super Bowl. I want Brett Favre in perfect health when we play the Patriots. I also want Aaron Rodgers prepared when 2 or 3 years from now, he's starting QB.
     
  7. johnny_blood

    johnny_blood Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Messages:
    254
    Ratings:
    +0
    I was actually responding to tromadz, I should have made that explicit. :)

    I agree with you 100%.
     
  8. warhawk

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Ratings:
    +38
    The problem with resting him is that you jeapordize staying in sync offensively.

    MM is not going to risk the momentum he has with the offense by letting Favre sit for say an intire game against a patsy. To be good at something you have to stay after it and while it sounds logical to give him some rest there are things that the offense can work on and improve on that you can't get in practice.

    It seems like every team we play we see a new wrinkle from the offense.
    You have to work on it for it to work.

    Besides, there is no messing with the opportunity for home field advantage. Home field for the Conference Championship is king and you don't screw around with that.

    This could very well come down to one more loss. Under those circumstances, unless that changes, I say no way.
     
  9. Pack93z

    Pack93z You retired too? .... Not me. I'm in my prime

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    4,855
    Ratings:
    +22
    See this past weekend, if the Packers have a sizeable lead within a game... Arod will play.. if not, he doesn't.

    That is unless we have homefield locked up by say week 16, then your theory makes sense, why risk Favre. But in your thread previous, you mention "the way things are going"... well with the that logic Dallas and us will be neck and neck.

    Homefield this year probably equals Super Bowl, or at least increases your odds by alot. I would love to see Dallas here in the playoffs.. TO with his teeth chattering..

    It has nothing to do with pulling Favre and everything to do with Home Field. So let go of the Favre worship crap and focus on winning as many games as possible and achieving home field if possible.
     
  10. pack_in_black

    pack_in_black Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,876
    Ratings:
    +0
    nice avatar, 93. Tell me you thought of 'ol Doc when you saw the poster named "johnnyblood".



    Cause that was the first thing that popped into my head too! :thumbsup:
     
  11. tromadz

    tromadz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    Well good luck with that. Rodgers-led GB teams would beat the rams and raiders.

    If Favre gets hurt for the year in the 2nd quarter with a 10-7 lead over the Rams, guess what, home field probably won't add up to jack ****.

    Let A-rod play the bad teams, while racking up wins for the team, keeping favre healthy,etc

    I can just see Favre getting hurt in a 'close game' and everyone on this forum flipping out, wanting MMs head for having him in there, or TT for not having a better Oline,etc.
     
  12. IronMan

    IronMan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    Messages:
    3,087
    Ratings:
    +8
    Whatever MM decides to do is fine with me. Its nice being 8-1 and being able to have a discussion about this. :beer:
     
  13. brennan1884

    brennan1884 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Messages:
    841
    Ratings:
    +0

    There shouldnt even be mention of Favre getting hurt in this forum
     
  14. Danreb

    Danreb Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    Messages:
    574
    Ratings:
    +0
    Quite frankly, I think Favre should be benched when we're up by 21. Sure, you take the offense out of sync, but if all the reports about Rodgers having a better idea of the playbook are true--we might as well see what he has.
     
  15. de_real_deal

    de_real_deal Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    Messages:
    591
    Ratings:
    +0
    Trade A-Rod for a 2nd rounder. Lord Favre will be around 5 more years
     
  16. Heatherthepackgirl

    Heatherthepackgirl Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,274
    Ratings:
    +0
    We have had only one game that Rodgers could have went in for Brett IMO and that one was the Viking game last weekend. I would have agreed to put in Rodgers before they did in that game because we were way ahead. But what other games are you guys talking about? Maybe I am getting older and cant remember. LOL.

    I also agree that they should have Rodgers throwing the ball more, when he does come into the game all he does is hand it off he isnt getting chemistry with our recievers that way, and with a score that cant be beat we could take some chances then.

    IMO if we win the Superbowl I think Favre will retire and go out on a high note which he deserves. But if we dont win IMO I think he will be back for a couple more seasons. He knows now that we have potential down the road to win a Superbowl.

    Anyways whatever MM is doing, hes doing well and maybe I wouldnt mess with a good thing.
     
  17. Tiger

    Tiger Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    1,090
    Ratings:
    +0
    lol this thread has got Green Bay Farvers all over it!
    Every yard ARod possibly makes is a yard stolen from no4, anyhow i'm pretty sure Favre is pretty selfish and wouldnt want to miss any snaps.
     
  18. Danreb

    Danreb Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    Messages:
    574
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yeah, the only game Rodgers could have been in was the Vikings game. And yes, he should've gone in earlier.
     
  19. dhpackr

    dhpackr Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,635
    Ratings:
    +0
    have a-rod return punts
     
  20. WinnipegPackFan

    WinnipegPackFan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,943
    Ratings:
    +0
    Agree warhawk , I would like to see Aaron get some snaps too but I think it's a fine line for a coach to decide when, as you don't want to weaken that offense sync that they have going ( and this is a team that's young when it comes to "sync" on offense).

    On the other hand, you don't want to risk injury and a few snaps wouldn't hurt Aaron "if" we were up by enough.

    Post Note: Glad I am not the coach !!!
     
  21. jdlax

    jdlax Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    818
    Ratings:
    +0
    tromadz,

    I'm just wondering if you had any examples of when teams have done what you're suggesting. I can understand giving the backup QB a good deal of time when your playoff seeding is cemented, but before then? I don't think I've ever heard of a healthy, productive QB being held out of a regular season game because they figured the understudy could handle it. That sounds like playing the backup goalie in hockey.
     
  22. tromadz

    tromadz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    well, No I don't, because there is only one Brett Favre.

    The thing is, this team can win without Brett Favre against bad opponents. Raiders and Rams? We NEED Favre to beat them? Huh?

    I understand it not happening and I won't bitch about it(unless he gets hurt and I look like a genius) but if we continue to win the rest of the month, and the lions and dallas lose more games, it will become an interesting idea...

    What's the point of getting to the playoffs and having homefield if your QB who is having an amazing year won't play cuz he got hurt in a game against nobodies?
     
  23. jdlax

    jdlax Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    818
    Ratings:
    +0
    Don't get me wrong, I understand what you're getting at, I just feel like since it's not really something teams do they must have their reasons. I don't know. I'd obviously be happy if they did do it, they won the games, and Brett didn't miss a beat stepping back in, while resting a few potential nagging hurts.
     
  24. PackinSteel

    PackinSteel Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,086
    Ratings:
    +0
    The rest of the teams are too busy trying to find a QB to start the game let alone run out garbage time. We should thank the stars we have Favre and enjoy every possible minute we get to watch him play.

    That said, I agree with getting ARod in whenever practical to do so - given the individual game situation. I sincerely doubt that MM's gameplan includes when to switch QBs.
     
  25. Pack93z

    Pack93z You retired too? .... Not me. I'm in my prime

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    4,855
    Ratings:
    +22
    What has A-Rod done to prove he can start and win a game in Brett's place? Is "playing for homefield" a place that you want to see how this team responds and A-Rod responds.

    If this teams just roll over and play dead, pull Brett when the games are in hand.

    Can you imagine the response if MM didn't start Brett and the Packers lost and a seeding position.... holy cow.
     

Share This Page