Packers hint they will rest starters next week

[ivo610]

I would like to see us win the game but not at the expense of anyone

 

[FrankRizzo]

I would not dress:

• Rodgers
• Jordy
• Matthews
• Raji
• Woodson

 

[Kitten]

I would rest them but only after the half or 1st quarter depending on how the game is going. This is a meaningless game for us, we already have the 1st round bye and home field advantage. Except for people wanting to see the Packers stick it to the Lions, what more do we have to play for. I would let them play a half, we don't want players getting rusty with the bye, especially starters. But we also need to be as careful as possible in terms of injury. If MM is that confident in resting them for the whole game and them being OK over the bye, than in MM I trust. Perhaps that is the best course, something tells me the Lions will be out for blood, why take the risk? It's might depend on what MM thinks is best. Obviously we are looking past this game and into the playoffs even now.

 

[Jules]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/teams/gnb/report

Another of the big milestones for quarterbacks is all but Rodgers', however. His league-leading 122.5 passer rating is more than a point better than Manning's single-season record of 121.1 in 2004.

Although Rodgers insisted Wednesday he hadn't thought about bumping Manning from the record book until the question was asked of him, his public lobbying on two separate occasions this week for backup Matt Flynn to run the offense is indicative of how the star quartrback feels about playing Sunday.

"I think if Coach does decide to limit my playing time, it would be a good opportunity for Matt to get a chance to play and play an extended amount of time," Rodgers said. "He started last year against New England and played excellent. I've said it before, I think he has a bright future in this league as an NFL starter."

The opportunity for Flynn to get experience could also benefit Rodgers. If he were to have a cameo appearance, a la the final preseason game, he could take his chances that he would exit the game with the esteemed record for passing efficiency all his. Only something as absurd as going the aforementioned 0-for-6 passing or throwing multiple interceptions for the first time in his sublime season before he potentially punches out early Sunday would knock Rodgers below Manning in the pecking order.

"I think any player would love to play and be on the field with your guys," Rodgers said. "It's not my decision, though. It's going to be Mike's decision, his final call ultimately. Whatever he decides, we'll go with."

Any talk of the Packers' needing to go full throttle and play well in Sunday's game at Lambeau Field so the team can roll into the playoffs is overstated, as Rodgers sees it. After all, Green Bay will be idle for two weeks until it plays its next game in the NFC divisional round Jan. 14 or 15.

"I don't think anybody is real worried about momentum at this point," Rodgers said. "We're the No. 1 seed. That's enough momentum.

"We're going to host a home playoff game. It's tough to play in Lambeau with the crowd going and the elements. I don't think many people are too worried about potential momentum going in, knowing that we do have a bye week the first week of the playoffs."

Nevertheless, Rodgers alluded to the "pride" factor on a number of fronts that is coursing through the locker room of the league's winningest team this season.

The Packers can become only the sixth team to finish the regular season no worse than 15-1 since the advent of the 16-game schedule in 1978. They can finish 8-0 at home in the regular season for the first time since 2002. They can win every game against their division rivals for the first time since the inception of the divisional format in 1967.

And, then there's the added incentive of winning a 21st straight game against the Lions in Wisconsin, going back to 1992, and preventing similarly postseason-bound Detroit (10-5) from garnering the No. 5 seed in the NFC bracket. The Lions would be the conference's top wild-card team if they beat the Packers or the Atlanta Falcons (9-6) lose to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers later Sunday.

If Detroit, which is treating the New Year's Day visit to Lambeau as a must-win game, winds up the fifth seed, a return trip to Green Bay for the divisional round wouldn't be out of the question.
"I think you have to have a lot of pride as a player," Rodgers said. "This is what we get paid to do. We love to play the game. I think if you're keen on history as well you realize that they haven't won here since 1991. So, you'd like to keep that streak going.

"They've obviously improved in the last couple of years and are playing really well. It's no surprise they're in the playoffs. They're playing for that fifth seed right now and the chance to go to the winner of the NFC East instead of maybe playing New Orleans or San Francisco (in the first round). I think we still have a lot of pride to play for."

 

[13 Times Champs]

Players can get hurt in the first half just like the second half. I wouldn't let Rodgers and several other critical players take a snap.

 

[neilfii]

^^ Yeah, including the first snap of the next game. Play them. Keep them sharp, and keep them on an upward/forward positive trajectory. We should all know by now that it is all about momentum and who gets hot. We're not going to have the right momentum and we are not going to be "hot" by sitting our starters. Play them. Momentum is much more important that "playing safe;" which has a tends to create more injuries than it does to prevent them. You can't control injuries anyway and we proved last year that we can overcome injuries, but you are much more unlikely to overcome momentum when it is "one and done."
I think conditioned, prepared, hard-hitting players are much more likely to not get injured. That is why IMHO the teams that do the best job of conditioning in training camp experience the fewest injuries in pre/early season games. It is when you go less than 100% that injuries occur and if you are not physically conditioned you cannot go 100% for as long as the other team.
If they are injured already and in need of rest, that is one thing, but I am totally opposed to "resting" them just because we can -- because I don't think (if we want to win in the playoffs) that we can.

 

[Ceodore]

Question, if Rodgers sat the whole game would it count against his average passer rating?
i.e. making his average divided by 16 instead of 15 even though he doesnt add to the numerator at all?

 

[13 Times Champs]

^^There is an opposite school of thought on that. Remember the next game is the Playoffs and that is a game that counts. A rested player, healing those nicks that players have after a long season are critical. That is why that first round bye is so important. We won't lose any momentum. Any team that can't get up for a playoff game won't go far in the playoffs anyway. Rodgers has showed he doesn't need the playing time to stay sharp. Remember his first game back after suffering that concussion last year? 25-37, 404 yards passing, 4 TD's and a passer rating of 139.9.

 

[TJV]

The Packers could rest a bunch players and lose in the playoffs and they could play this game like it really matters and lose in the playoffs. I'm with those who think it makes sense to rest players. Rodgers is the most important player on the team and since they're playing (IMO) the dirtiest team in the league I wouldn't expose him beyond the first couple of series, if that. I'd rest Woodson and Driver because they're "old". And I'd rest Matthews because he's one of the most critically important players on D and I don't worry at all about his motivation. I'd also rest Starks so his ankle could heal and any other player who is more nicked up than "normal".

Having said all that, we should keep in mind the roster is only comprised of 53 players and only 46 can be active on game day. They can only rest so many.

BTW, Rodgers passer rating would not be affected at all by his not playing.

 

[neilfii]

Respectfully agree to disagree. I have and always will believe that playing all out is the only way to go for the reasons I stated above. Even in the regular season, pulling starters is not primarily to avoid the risk of injury; it is to give valuable experience to backups, to determine potential in other possible players, and perhaps to refrain from running up the score as much or more so than avoiding injury.
Ask Jules and the Colts fans how well that "resting players" works out.
Yeah, it can go either way. Injuries can happen either way. I would just rather they happen, if they are going to happen, playing, playing hard, and not resting. JMO

 

[13 Times Champs]

I think it is far fetched to say the Colts lost the Super Bowl because they rested players in 2009. In their first playoff game they beat the Ravens 20-3 and in the second against the Jets they won 30-17. Where was the momentum loss that would surely have shown up in these games if resting players was a causal factor? They lost to the Saints in the Super Bowl not because they rested players but because the Saints were better that day.

 

[neilfii]

No more far fetched than the assumption that to play them will result in injuries. Stalemate.

 

[Ceodore]

No more far fetched than the assumption that to play them will result in injuries. Stalemate.

I don't really understand your argument at all. If i had to guess, I would say that there has been on average at least one injury in EVERY NFL game that has taken place this year. And that would mean, hypothetically speaking, that once every other game, a Packer gets injured (its probably been more/more often than that). Sure, those injuries don't always take a player out for the season or even for the game for that matter. But if you can avoid having Aaron Rodgers, or Jordy Nelson, or Charles Woodson or Clay Matthews get hurt during the course of a meaningless game, why wouldn't you take advantage of that? Especially against one of the cheapest teams in the league?

There's no hard and fast evidence that resting players makes them less ready for playoffs. These guys are professionals, it's their job to be ready. It's a long season and their bodies are beaten up. I think it's more important to let them get better than it is to risk injury on a "theory" that by not playing, they become worse.

 

[Kitten]

No more far fetched than the assumption that to play them will result in injuries. Stalemate.

I think what people are referring to is the risk factor when it comes to playing starters. Nobody is assuming anything, it's just a matter of weighing out the risk of potentially having a starter going down in a game that means nothing. The Lions will be out for blood too, no doubt if we play our starters they will go for them with guns blazing. It's something MM is really going to have to think about. If he plays them and one goes down, they will hold that over MM's head. I'm starting to become more of the mind of why would we take an unnecessary risk.

 

[13 Times Champs]

I'v

I don't really understand your argument at all. If i had to guess, I would say that there has been on average at least one injury in EVERY NFL game that has taken place this year. And that would mean, hypothetically speaking, that once every other game, a Packer gets injured (its probably been more/more often than that). Sure, those injuries don't always take a player out for the season or even for the game for that matter. But if you can avoid having Aaron Rodgers, or Jordy Nelson, or Charles Woodson or Clay Matthews get hurt during the course of a meaningless game, why wouldn't you take advantage of that? Especially against one of the cheapest teams in the league?

There's no hard and fast evidence that resting players makes them less ready for playoffs. These guys are professionals, it's their job to be ready. It's a long season and their bodies are beaten up. I think it's more important to let them get better than it is to risk injury on a "theory" that by not playing, they become worse.

Exactly!

 

[Jules]

I think it is far fetched to say the Colts lost the Super Bowl because they rested players in 2009. In their first playoff game they beat the Ravens 20-3 and in the second against the Jets they won 30-17. Where was the momentum loss that would surely have shown up in these games if resting players was a causal factor? They lost to the Saints in the Super Bowl not because they rested players but because the Saints were better that day.

Pretty much. The Colts really wrote a book that year called "What not to do to blow the big game; edited by the 2007 New England Patriots."

Really though the problem with the Colts was not going for 16-0. The Packers no longer can get 16-0 so nobody cares as much. And Matt Flynn is a much MUCH more capable backup QB then Curtis finger Painter is.

I am glad the Niners found a way to beat Seattle last weekend. I am glad the Packers had a reason to beat the Bears and not rest for two games. When you have two games that are meaningless it is a lot worse then one game. One game is doable and like Aaron said momentum can be meaningless when you have a bye week.

Part of me though feels some of the defensive issues on the Packers right now are due to them potentially needing a rest. Rest the clock, regroup and try it again in the postseason maybe.

You can't rest everyone though for the whole game. Some will have to play. I do suppose the key starters could be pulled early though. Aaron sounds like he does want Flynn to have an opportunity to play/prove himself, which is amazingly unselfish of him not to want to be out there slinging it and stat padding.

 

[neilfii]

There's no hard and fast evidence that resting players makes them less ready for playoffs. These guys are professionals, it's their job to be ready. It's a long season and their bodies are beaten up. I think it's more important to let them get better than it is to risk injury on a "theory" that by not playing, they become worse.

And Rodgers has played 15 games without injury and there is no reason to believe he will be injured in this game. I am a firm believer in continuity, in momentum, in the team that wins the playoff is the team that is peaking at the right time. I think resting them risks breaking that continuity. I think resting them gets them out of rhythm and I think that is a greater risk than the risk of injury. What we are talking about is the risk of injury vs. the risk of breaking continuity. You all fall on one side of the argument, and I the other.
It takes a while to get into rhythm in each game (look at the game vs. the Bears, even though we got off to a great start Finley dropped a few, the rhythm was gone and we had three straight three and outs). Gelling, continuity, and rhythm are vital. You don't want to risk injury, I don't want to risk losing the rhythm. I don't understand why you want to sit them and you don't understand why I want to play them. It's my opinion and that is the beauty of football and this forum; reasonable minds differ (at least I assume you all are reasonable ).
Also, if you will read the post, I am in favor of resting the "wounded" and those who need resting. I'm just not in favor of resting those who are perfectly healthy and ready to play.

 

[Jules]

Depends on pass protection too. I heard Madden on the radio yesterday saying that if the game is meaningless then often it depends on how well your QB is getting protected. Pull him if you think he is getting hit too much and the protection puts him in danger.

I am not sure how many o line starters will be out there Sunday so thats something to look at. And the Lions d line is a concern.......as we know.

 

[13 Times Champs]

I doubt we will lose in continuity on defense by resting players. And as I stated Rodgers has not shown that rest takes the edge off his performances. Finley bad example, he crawls out of bed with two drops.

 

[neilfii]

I doubt we will lose in continuity on defense by resting players. And as I stated Rodgers has not shown that rest takes the edge off his performances.

I wasn't limiting it to defense -- you can't lose what you never had.

 

[13 Times Champs]

I wasn't limiting it to defense -- you can't lose what you never had.

So at least half your argument is gone and I see you didn't include part of my post on the offensive side that didn't lead credence to your argument.

 

[neilfii]

You just don't seem to get it or are just not able to let it go. It is a matter of opinion. You can't prove your premise either. I think they should play, you think they should rest. I respect your opinion and your right to have it. Please extend me the same courtesy.

 

[13 Times Champs]

^^You have been just as guilty of not letting it go. I think your argument is full of holes. I accept your post other than the first sentence in it.

 

[Bogart]

I think it is far fetched to say the Colts lost the Super Bowl because they rested players in 2009. In their first playoff game they beat the Ravens 20-3 and in the second against the Jets they won 30-17. Where was the momentum loss that would surely have shown up in these games if resting players was a causal factor? They lost to the Saints in the Super Bowl not because they rested players but because the Saints were better that day.

Totally agree, but what is ignored is the Saints also rested their starters too that year . They did play their starters against Tampa Bay, but Payton was slowly benching them despite the close game, and they ended up losing in OT. And then in Week 17, he benched everyone against Carolina. So that easily dismisses the Colts case.

 

[FrankRizzo]

Players can get hurt in the first half just like the second half. I wouldn't let Rodgers and several other critical players take a snap.

I agree... they won't get rusty because of a bye, and they won't get rusty because of sitting out a game. If they did, then Jennings will suck when he comes back, Rodgers would have sucked after he missed the Lions and Patriots game late last year, but guess what, he came back from that en fuego. And healthy. The health of him is the key. And 85, 87, 89, 80, and 88, 18, 25, 44......21 & 52.