How to treat Lacy

[gopkrs]

OK, this is a question I have for just about every sport. If Lacy has a bad sprain; then what in the world was he doing out on the field? Are doctors on the sidelines braindead? Can't MM make up his own mind and just do what is best for the team and player? Or does he just fall back on what he is told? Sometimes you have to believe what you see. Hard for me to accept that playing on a bum ankle does not make it worse.

 

[yooperpackfan]

OK, this is a question I have for just about every sport. If Lacy has a bad sprain; then what in the world was he doing out on the field? Are doctors on the sidelines braindead? Can't MM make up his own mind and just do what is best for the team and player? Or does he just fall back on what he is told? Sometimes you have to believe what you see. Hard for me to accept that playing on a bum ankle does not make it worse.

He had to play him because Ted Thompson left the running back pipeline empty.
It's typical of Thompson to leave positions barren, sometimes for years at a time.

 

[Un4GivN]

OK, this is a question I have for just about every sport. If Lacy has a bad sprain; then what in the world was he doing out on the field? Are doctors on the sidelines braindead? Can't MM make up his own mind and just do what is best for the team and player? Or does he just fall back on what he is told? Sometimes you have to believe what you see. Hard for me to accept that playing on a bum ankle does not make it worse.

This is a hindsight problem...

Do you know how many times Favre stepped out on the field when he should have been benched? And we praise him for having the guts to get out there and play.

Now to this situation. Eddie tried to play and it ended up making it worse. But can you really blame the team, this was an important game, we were short on RB's, and Eddie is in a contract year trying to prove something. Does that make it right or wrong. Not to mention he is top 10 in yards per carry. I think it's pretty harsh to say the doctors are brain dead after the fact.

 

[gopkrs]

This is a hindsight problem...

Do you know how many times Favre stepped out on the field when he should have been benched? And we praise him for having the guts to get out there and play.

Now to this situation. Eddie tried to play and it ended up making it worse. But can you really blame the team, this was an important game, we were short on RB's, and Eddie is in a contract year trying to prove something. Does that make it right or wrong. Not to mention he is top 10 in yards per carry. I think it's pretty harsh to say the doctors are brain dead after the fact.

You make a good point in bringing up Favre. But I would rather be cautious. Unless, it is a must win and the result is uncertain as to the injury. And Favre is an exception. You can call a lot of things 20/20 hindsight but I would be surprised if there were not a lot of people thinking the same thing I was.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

This is a hindsight problem...

It was pretty obvious that depth might become a problem at running back after entering the season with only two players at the position.

 

[Un4GivN]

You make a good point in bringing up Favre. But I would rather be cautious. Unless, it is a must win and the result is uncertain as to the injury. And Favre is an exception. You can call a lot of things 20/20 hindsight but I would be surprised if there were not a lot of people thinking the same thing I was.

I guess I will save judgement till after I hear what is wrong. According to NFL.COM
"Rapoport added that Lacy's ailment is "more than a sprained ankle.""
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...-eddie-lacy-to-miss-several-weeks-big-ben-out

So did he get a non-related injury, or did it worsen things. From my time playing sports (YEARS AND YEARS AGO), sprained ankles are usually not a huge concern for additional injury. A lot of times they just taped it up and it was a personal choice whether or not you go back in. Pain tolerance thing. Of course high ankle sprains are a different beast all together.

 

[Un4GivN]

It was pretty obvious that depth might become a problem at running back after entering the season with only two players at the position.

I was speaking to the letting Lacy play portion, not the depth at position.

But it is obvious we over compensated for last years debacle by keeping to many WR's. Abbrederis should have been cut at 53 man time to keep another RB. He is never used and there really isn't a sport for him to fit currently with Cobb and Montegomery already in the slot position.

9 linebackers 6 safeties is also a bit debatable but we had a problem with that position in the past so they in my mind kept extra here too.

The Packers had plenty of room on the team... Just not the decision that was made.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I was speaking to the letting Lacy play portion, not the depth at position.

But it is obvious we over compensated for last years debacle by keeping to many WR's. Abbrederis should have been cut at 53 man time to keep another RB. He is never used and there really isn't a sport for him to fit currently with Cobb and Montegomery already in the slot position.

9 linebackers 6 safeties is also a bit debatable but we had a problem with that position in the past so they in my mind kept extra here too.

The Packers had plenty of room on the team... Just not the decision that was made.

The Packers for sure shouldn't have entered the season with only two running backs.

 

[gopkrs]

To be fair. When you have the 3rd running back on the practice squad; that (except for the immediate game) is carrying more than 1.

 

[gopkrs]

From my time playing sports (YEARS AND YEARS AGO), sprained ankles are usually not a huge concern for additional injury. A lot of times they just taped it up and it was a personal choice whether or not you go back in. Pain tolerance thing. Of course high ankle sprains are a different beast all together.[/QUOTE]

Not to mention back then the powers that be just did not give a ****. You were a ***** if you did not play hurt. No matter the repurcussions. Ever see Bill Walton walk? He was a great player and the Trail Blazers did not care about his long term health. Just an example but I believe it happened all the time and the mind set is still carried on to some degree. And it is not even smart as far as the team is concerned!

 

[Deleted member 6794]

To be fair. When you have the 3rd running back on the practice squad; that (except for the immediate game) is carrying more than 1.

While that's true it doesn't seem the Packers feel comfortable about promoting Jackson.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think the Packers were set to go into the regular season with 3 RB's, but when Crockett got hurt at the end of August they were suddenly exposed with really nothing behind him and thus left themselves with no choice but to go with two RB's and try and find an adequate 3rd for the PS. Even that decision you could tell wasn't sitting right with them, they immediately grabbed Pressley when the Vikings cut him and put him on the 53. He didn't last long and the Packers incorrectly assumed that they could get through the season with just Lacy and Starks and develop Jackson.

This season so far IMO has been filled with some glaring mistakes by the powers to be in the way they have/haven't handled certain things; Punter, Sitton, RB, Shields.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

To be fair. When you have the 3rd running back on the practice squad; that (except for the immediate game) is carrying more than 1.

I won't regurgitate it, but I was curious the other day and scanned other teams 53 depth chart. Seems like most teams carry 3 RB's , some even 4, on their 53. The fact that Jackson isn't ready to play, is an indication to me that the Packers really weren't thinking ahead on this.

 

[Mondio]

it's funny how all this changes. It's no doubt that not having a RB at this point is going to hurt the team. But go back to August and nobody was talking about keeping 4 running backs.

Everyone was concerned about defensive line depth, which superstar in the making WR we were going to have to let go to another team, and all the stud DBs we had to keep.

Now the brain trust are idiots and asleep on the job because we're down a boatload of dbs , our wr's are failing to perform, and we're down 3 running backs at the moment.

Just a week ago everyone was pissed we had to cut a 3rd string qb that was not going to lead us anywhere if he played or not, imagine if we cut him in August to make room for a 4th RB that did t earn a spot on the roster, I do t even have to guess what the reaction would have been...

 

[Vrill]

Sign another RB. Then roll with Davis and Don Jackson (or someone else) for a few weeks while we let Lacy rest and get to 100% for the playoff push.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

it's funny how all this changes. It's no doubt that not having a RB at this point is going to hurt the team. But go back to August and nobody was talking about keeping 4 running back.

I don't remember any poster complaining about not keeping four running backs but there was a lot of stunned fans about the team deciding to keep only two.

 

[Mondio]

I don't remember any poster complaining about not keeping four running backs but there was a lot of stunned fans about the team deciding to keep only two.

And had we scooped up someone else at RB we would have had to create another roster spot so who we cutting? Whoever it was, I promise there would have been a lot of upset fans, and had we cut a player on the DL and we struggled against the run, or suffered injuries they'd be complaint about not having enough.

Or had we cut a db, and then had these Injuries and started struggling in the defensive backfield, they'd be complaining about that.

You can't predict how a season will unfold, there was nobody with us in camp that earned a spot on the 53 at RB that was cut

 

[JK64]

The Packers for sure shouldn't have entered the season with only two running backs.

They had a bunch of RB's in training camp. They must have all been failed attempts by TT. NOT GOOD!

 

[Deleted member 6794]

And had we scooped up someone else at RB we would have had to create another roster spot so who we cutting? Whoever it was, I promise there would have been a lot of upset fans, and had we cut a player on the DL and we struggled against the run, or suffered injuries they'd be complaint about not having enough.

Well, it took the Packers eight days to even fill the vacant roster spot after the team released Pressley, therefore no other move woukd have had to be made at that point to bring in another running back.

 

[Mondio]

probably took 8 days because other things emerged that took consideration for the roster spot at that point too. And at that point we're looking at those that nobody else wanted, and other practice squads. At that point we also still had 2 healthy proven running backs

 

[Deleted member 6794]

probably took 8 days because other things emerged that took consideration for the roster spot at that point too. And at that point we're looking at those that nobody else wanted, and other practice squads. At that point we also still had 2 healthy proven running backs

I'm convinced Thompson should have kept three running backs on the roster as a team is only one injury away from having to add a player no other club was interested in adding to their 53.

 

[RRyder]

I'm convinced Thompson should have kept three running backs on the roster as a team is only one injury away from having to add a player no other club was interested in adding to their 53.

While i think they probably should've kept 3 I'm pretty sure the idea was that Cobb and Montgomery were the new scat backs for this team and as such the 3rd RB wasn't needed.

I thought Montgomery projected better as a RB anyways so I've been cool with it and personally loved his production when pressed into a larger role in the backfield this past Sunday. Pretty much the only bright spot

 

[PikeBadger]

I'm convinced Thompson should have kept three running backs on the roster as a team is only one injury away from having to add a player no other club was interested in adding to their 53.

I'm absolutely convinced that Cobb/Montgomery were to play the third RB role after Crockett got hurt and it allowed them to keep 7 WR's. We all know that Thompson is a ramblin gamblin roster builder and doesn't abide by pre-set numbers at positions. We've broken camp with 7 O-linemen and fared well with it. It's pretty obvious they try to protect the best 53 regardless of position. That is not popular here with some.

 

[King of Jeans]

I would treat lacy to a salad

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Looked like he tweaked it atthe end of one of those runs he jumped over a guy....