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

Secondary returns after 5 games

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by TJV, Oct 16, 2015.

  1. TJV

    TJV Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    5,389
    Ratings:
    +4,176
    There are a couple of good articles about the secondary from jsonline and Packers Notes.
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Eli Haugen

    Eli Haugen Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2014
    Messages:
    1,532
    Ratings:
    +255
    the game plan is working because guys like raji, daniels, guion, and the whole dline unit, are dominating. peppers and mathews are blowing the top off, and the other lbs are feasting on scraps. ted has been drafting ball hawks (nothing but) since hayward. hyde, dix, and the 3 rookies are playing great, and that completes a great defense. cut the dump off routes, and the rush kills the qb if they take the time to go deep. perfect recipe for leading the nfl in sacks and turnovers. im extremely happy about it.
     
  3. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,809
    Ratings:
    +3,747
    Medical clearance is a gray area. Many prognoses importantly involve the question, "how does it feel?".

    These are highly competitive individuals; for many their identity is deeply tied up with playing football. Some might be happy to collect a paycheck whether they are on the field or in the whirlpool, but they don't last very long.

    As Bulaga illustrated in his recent quotes, he knows his body and has experience with injury. He knows what he can tolerate. An MD is not in position to declare a black or white assessment in many cases. Adams too...he gave it his best shot and it didn't work out, but I for one appreciate the effort. Cobb doesn't look like he's 100%. Tramon Williams played the better part of 2 years with the affects of nerve damage in his shoulder to an extent that press coverage was turned over to Shields. Rodgers played last year limping around.

    We cannot celebrate the warrior ethos when a players is 100% and not at the same time appreciate it when they are willing to play at something less.

    So, the matter is very much up to the player, even if not exclusively.

    At the extreme, I found it interesting to hear Andy Reid discuss recently a Terrell Owens injury where the player was medically declared "out". TO insisted on playing and the Eagles had him sign a waiver freeing the team from any liability. Despite TO being a social misfit and his subsequent dustups with his QB that led to his release, he's still loved by many fans in Philly for putting forth that effort. While I don't believe the Packers do business this way, it does illustrate the competitive nature of players and the lengths they might go to get on the field.

    How about Ronnie Lott? He was looking at extended treatment of a damaged finger; instead he had it amputated to get back on the field sooner.

    If the player wants to play, and he says the things that move the matter in the gray area, let him play.
     
  4. TJV

    TJV Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    5,389
    Ratings:
    +4,176
    Of course medical clearance isn't always a grey area: The concussion protocol is an obvious example. And I have no reason to believe if the team doc told McCarthy & staff that a player would likely re-aggravate an injury or just is not ready would not heed that advice. That's why I said if they're medically cleared they are likely to play. However, with injuries like Burnett's calf and Adams' ankle, the doctors don't have the kind of evidence to strongly argue against the player's return so it's up to the players. Both Burnett and Adams re-aggravated their injuries by returning too soon. So I hope both sit to give their injuries extra time to heal and I wouldn't hold it against either of them.

    In another thread captainWIMM posted:
     
  5. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,809
    Ratings:
    +3,747
    Of course it isn't. Often it is. And nearly all injuries eventually enter a gray area as recovery is neared. Even the concussion protocal. More lawyering....

    If a player is in the gray area, which often the case, he says he feels good enough to play and wants to get on the field, let 'em play.
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2015
  6. TJV

    TJV Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    5,389
    Ratings:
    +4,176
    Funny how you're really stuck on that lawyering thing, you must have had a bad experience with one. :D I was just responding to this:
    That's obviously not true. But more important:
    That's the kind of macho thinking that gets players to re-aggravate their injuries to the detriment of the team. That used to be what happened all too often with concussions. Better to be smart and keep their eyes on the season as a whole.
     
  7. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,809
    Ratings:
    +3,747
    I've never engaged a lawyer in my life other than for wills, real estate transactions and an estate. I've never sued or been sued; I've never even received a letter from the IRS.

    Questions:

    When you nit picked that post, did you think I believed every injury at every point in time has a gray area?

    Would you think I'd believe that a guy who just blew his ACL last week and is in a cast this week after surgery would be in a gray area?

    "Lawyering", as I define it, is:

    (1) disingenuously parsing words to discredit an argument as you did in focusing on the statement, "Medical clearance is a gray area" when the rest of the post clearly indicates that's not a blanket statement, as if anybody would think that in the first place, or

    (2) isolating on a small point, insignificant or irrelevant to the larger argument, in an effort to discredit that argument.

    You have a habit of doing both. The shoe fits. It's been going on for quite some time, and not just with me. I've grown tired of it; I'll continue to call you out on it.

    As for the concussion protocol, there is a point at which it reaches a gray area that involves questions about how the player feels.

    As for the last point regarding macho thinking, you're entitled to that opinion, but it is evidently not consistent with Packer thinking nor with mine.

    We've seem many instances of Packer players engaging in just that kind of "macho" thinking...guys playing with known injuries or injuries we find out about after the fact. Rodgers, Sitton, Lang, Bulaga, Cobb, even Adams when he came back too early and ended up limping down the field and put to the sidelines. We were told in the offseason that Perry was impaired most the off season with a bum shoulder. We've seen Matthews, and more recently Palmer, playing with a club. Tramon Williams, prior to one season, said his shoulder was just fine when it didn't look like it when the season was underway, only to admit it wasn't quite right after the season.

    Do you think Bulaga isn't risking further injury at this juncture, having had 4 surgeries on that knee? Do you think the Packers don't know that? Do you think no Packer player ever takes a needle?

    Now, if you want to make the argument, for example, that it was OK for Rodgers to play on his injury a the end of last season because, well, it was the end of the season, and that he should not have played under the same condition in week 6, that's an entirely different question, and one I would also take issue with.

    So, you can have your opinions and I'll have my arguments.
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2015
  8. TJV

    TJV Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    5,389
    Ratings:
    +4,176
    HRE you do what you are accusing me of doing. Look at the OP. You didn't address a single point I made - instead you nit pick the last paragraph which I begin with "BTW, I know McCarthy and staff can’t think this way – if a player is medically cleared to play and wants to play, they will. But I will not be disappointed if Burnett, Adams, and Lang sit this week." That's a minor portion of that post and not even on point with the subject of the thread - the title was a clue you apparently missed.

    BTW, both Adams and Burnett are inactive today. You must think they're p*ssies.

    And if you're ever curious what's wrong with your posting, here's a big clue:
    :rolleyes:
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  9. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,809
    Ratings:
    +3,747
    Here's the difference, TJV. You rendered an opinion about how injuries should be handled which was an independent thought relative to the rest of the post. It was not some trivial supporting detail or offhand comment within a larger argument.

    Further, what was said prior to your injury opinion were the observations of others. I addressed the thing that was uniquely yours.

    In neither of these cases was a picking I picking on some trivial detail in an attempt to discredit a larger argument.

    Which brings to mind another aspect of your lawyering that I wanted to address in the Davis thread until I saw it was shut down. I'll point out that aspect the next time it appears.
     
  10. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,809
    Ratings:
    +3,747
    Try looking up "argument" in the dictionary.
     
  11. TJV

    TJV Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    5,389
    Ratings:
    +4,176
    Yes it was an offhand comment - I should know since I wrote it. The clues you missed were "BTW..." and it was not on the subject of the OP.

    Look up "opinion" in the dictionary. And as much as you hate to admit it, yours are not always correct. And still not one sentence from you on the subject of this thread... :rolleyes:
     
  12. buggybill2003

    buggybill2003 Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    4,992
    Ratings:
    +3,052
    Well, what a lovely day. Looking forward to smoking my pipe, drinking a glass of whiskey, and browsing through some dictionaries and law books. :D
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  13. Sky King

    Sky King Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,541
    Ratings:
    +968
    Me, too. I'm trying to keep up. :coffee:
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  14. buggybill2003

    buggybill2003 Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    4,992
    Ratings:
    +3,052
    They lost me around #2 ;), but it was interesting though.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  15. PFanCan

    PFanCan That's MISTER Cheesehead, to you.

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2009
    Messages:
    1,880
    Ratings:
    +1,232
    The thread title changes, but not the content. At least they have stopped yelling about kettles this time.
     
  16. JBlood

    JBlood Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2004
    Messages:
    3,158
    Ratings:
    +1,312
    Hard to argue the treatment of any NFL injury when the details of them are rarely known outside the locker room. But I do suspect the majority of players play with some sort of injury most of the time. Especially those without big contracts.
     
  17. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,809
    Ratings:
    +3,747
    You started the thread and made injuries a topic by mentioning injury replacements and then opining about injuries in general.

    It was your topic, and the "BTW..." was part of it, and the matter is not trivial.

    As for the rest of that post, I did not comment and will not now because I didn't find anything revealing or novel or containing something I disagreed with that was non-trivial.
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2015
    • Disagree Disagree x 1

Share This Page