Should we rest our starters?

[Rodgers in the House]

No way in hell McCarthy rests anyone. We started the season, we finish it. The good people of Green Bay, Wisconsin will burn him at the stake if he does. Tickets to any Packer game are insane as it is. Get my drift?

 

[SpartaChris]

I want to win a Super Bowl, I don't care about going undefeated.

New England tried it and they LOST the Super Bowl, nice way to be remembered.

If you're 13-0 and have everything wrapped up, start resting the starters instead of risking losing a key one. Last thing we need is to go into the playoffs missing keys to the team. The playoffs is what matters after you catch the #1 seed. That is ALL that matters. If they lose in the regular season, the world is not going to end, if they lose in the playoffs, it's over. You can think of going into the playoffs undefeated and riding the W's to the Super Bowl, but you never know with the playoffs. Those teams are there for a reason.

Right, because going into the Super Bowl 18-0 really had a lot to do with them losing the Super Bowl. I hate this argument. One has nothing to do with the other.

Every team has a 1 in 32 shot at winning the Super Bowl. Not every team has a chance to complete the perfect season. So long as we have the opportunity, I would like to see it through.

 

[Dan115]

What is goal for this team?

 

[SpartaChris]

What is goal for this team?

Right, and we did that last year. Why not reach for more in pursuit of that goal this year?

 

[Dan115]

Right, and we did that last year. Why not reach for more in pursuit of that goal this year?

LOL I just hope we can continue with this debate next week. I would rather win multiple Super Bowls. To me it is not worth the risk of injury. Risk vs Reward. McCarthy hopefully will have to make that decision. Right now at 11-0 I don't think much thought is going into this at 1265 Lombardi Ave.

 

[Bogart]

Right, because going into the Super Bowl 18-0 really had a lot to do with them losing the Super Bowl. I hate this argument. One has nothing to do with the other.

Every team has a 1 in 32 shot at winning the Super Bowl. Not every team has a chance to complete the perfect season. So long as we have the opportunity, I would like to see it through.

They were bound to lose a game, and it came at no other better time at them blowing the Super Bowl.

I'd much rather lose in the regular season than lose in the Super Bowl, do you want to remembered as a team that went 16-0 and lost in the playoffs or Super Bowl? Not me.

If we're 14-0 and we lose some starters by trying to go undefeated, it's not going to look good in the playoffs. THAT is what matters, not the regular season after you clinch home field. We were 10-6 last year, those 6 loses were by a few points but it didn't matter come play off time.

 

[TJV]

IMO the Packers could win the Super Bowl after resting players once they’ve clinched HFA throughout the playoffs and they could win it after going all out though their last game. (And they could lose in the playoffs either way as well.) As I’ve posted, I don’t care about going 16-0, just about winning championships. I hope and expect McCarthy to do whatever he thinks is best to prepare for the playoff run. Either way he decides to go is fine with me. IMO he’s earned that respect. And of course, he knows the team better than any of us.

 

[SpartaChris]

They were bound to lose a game, and it came at no other better time at them blowing the Super Bowl.

I'd much rather lose in the regular season than lose in the Super Bowl, do you want to remembered as a team that went 16-0 and lost in the playoffs or Super Bowl? Not me.

If we're 14-0 and we lose some starters by trying to go undefeated, it's not going to look good in the playoffs. THAT is what matters, not the regular season after you clinch home field. We were 10-6 last year, those 6 loses were by a few points but it didn't matter come play off time.

You're a fairly smart person, so I don't your flawed logic. Losing in the regular season doesn't equate to winning a Super Bowl and going undefeated into the post season doesn't equate to losing the Super Bowl.

We won the Super Bowl last year, and while I would love to see a repeat, I would also like for this team to do something only one other team in NFL history has ever done. Any team can win the Super Bowl. Not any team can complete the perfect season. This team should strive for perfection.

 

[ivo610]

Pull Rodgers in the 2nd half, and tell him you will be doing it so he can light up the scoreboard. I can see arguments for pulling raji (#of reps), Matthews (injury) and Woodson (age) also. I wouldn't do it though until week 16 I don't think.

 

[Bogart]

You're a fairly smart person, so I don't your flawed logic. Losing in the regular season doesn't equate to winning a Super Bowl and going undefeated into the post season doesn't equate to losing the Super Bowl.

We won the Super Bowl last year, and while I would love to see a repeat, I would also like for this team to do something only one other team in NFL history has ever done. Any team can win the Super Bowl. Not any team can complete the perfect season. This team should strive for perfection.

I'm worried about the playoffs.


If it comes down to a game where we are 13-0 and we start losing starters trying to go undefeated, I hope McCarthy does the right thing and benches everyone the last few games to not risk losing more, the playoffs is all that matters. If he pushes it to go undefeated and we lose a bunch of key starters in the process and enter the playoffs all banged up, it will the be the last thing we need.

 

[Chicocheese]

I for one am not worried about injuries for 2 reasons:

1) More than likely our key guys won't go down and,

2) When we do lose people, our bench fills in and does a stellar job! Robert Francois anyone? Super Bowl XLV anyone? Entire 2010 season?!?!

Of course I want all of the starters AND the bench to be healthy all season, but if something bad happens I think that McCarthy and Co. are more than prepared.

 

[_Xyn]

Maybe put in Flynn near the end of year... He is really good anyways and I honestly cannot risk Rodgers out there... and he seems to do better with rest. Who knows though.

 

[packerfan4ever]

Well we lost two starters this week,the thing is starters get hurt our backs even last year play their hearts out for the team,and if they have to step in say 2nd half of game I could see the win the team is that good,feel like the rest starters should play all the way through,Finn for instance i.r. last year grant they all want to be in the game to win the ring,give them the chance to make history because deep down 19-0 is going to happen I just can feel it history for the pack and it's because of the players we have starters back ups they play it well on the field.

 

[Chicocheese]

Maybe put in Flynn near the end of year... He is really good anyways and I honestly cannot risk Rodgers out there... and he seems to do better with rest. Who knows though.

No way. Need to keep everyone in a steady rhythm. Flynn goes in during MNF vs. Vikings types of situations.

 

[_Xyn]

No way. Need to keep everyone in a steady rhythm. Flynn goes in during MNF vs. Vikings types of situations.

If we lose next week will this change your mind?

 

[Kitten]

It's conditional. If it's the last few games of the season and we've already clinched the division and a first round bye, I say maybe rest and rotate a few in the 2nd half as long as the game is secure. Maybe bring Flynn in to close or some backups to give them a few reps for experience as some of them may be starting next year or for the sake of trade value. I would not go into any game planning on resting starters. Resting them too much going into the playoffs may create "bye" like symptoms. It might get them off their game and make them rusty. They are used to and conditioned to play every week as starters and as long as the team is performing extremely well, why risk disturbing that formula. If they get a first round bye, the whole team will get to rest. I think this late in the season, with their minds on the playoffs and SB, the starters are going to want to play, not sit on the bench. As other posters have suggested, injuries can occur any time, even in practice, why game plan for them? I say let them play. They are in a good rhythm. Right now I would not do anything to disturb that. Let the Pack keep rolling.

 

[Jules]

This was at 8-0. No doubt they talk about it at times and it might drive them...

Of course guys at times can limit reps if they are wearing down, but I definitely do not see the Packers tanking it to rest like the Colts did after reading this over.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/11/09/charles-woodson-aims-for-19-0/

“We can talk about it,” Woodson told Mike Silver of Yahoo! Sports. “I don’t care. We’re 8-0. We’d love to be 16-0 – love to. It’s a realistic conversation now. We’re halfway there. So yeah, let’s talk about it.”


So has he talked about the goal with Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers? “Yeah, at times,” Woodson said. “We know what we want.”

Woodson said that there’s “[n]o question” the Packers will keep the pedal to the metal late in the year, if they’re still in position to achieve perfection. In past seasons, teams like the Colts have opted to rest starters for the playoffs in lieu of pursuing an unblemished record.

“I’d love to go undefeated,” Woodson said. “I’d absolutely love to. Not just the regular season – the whole thing.”

 

[Jules]

It's conditional. If it's the last few games of the season and we've already clinched the division and a first round bye, I say maybe rest and rotate a few in the 2nd half as long as the game is secure. Maybe bring Flynn in to close or some backups to give them a few reps for experience as some of them may be starting next year or for the sake of trade value. I would not go into any game planning on resting starters. Resting them too much going into the playoffs may create "bye" like symptoms. It might get them off their game and make them rusty. They are used to and conditioned to play every week as starters and as long as the team is performing extremely well, why risk disturbing that formula. If they get a first round bye, the whole team will get to rest. I think this late in the season, with their minds on the playoffs and SB, the starters are going to want to play, not sit on the bench. As other posters have suggested, injuries can occur any time, even in practice, why game plan for them? I say let them play. They are in a good rhythm. Right now I would not do anything to disturb that. Let the Pack keep rolling.

Just ask Asomugha. No way the Eagles prepared for him to hurt his knee in practice.

 

[Chicocheese]

If we lose next week will this change your mind?

Absolutely not. The starters remain in for all 16 games no matter what, IMO. Like I said, the 16-0 is only part of the reason to keep them in, not the entire reason. If I were coach, I would rotate in the second-string in the 4th quarter of the final 2 games IF we had a comfortable lead. That is the closest to resting the starters I would go. Not to mention I am sure the starters want to play all 16 games anyways.

 

[_Xyn]

Absolutely not. The starters remain in for all 16 games no matter what, IMO. Like I said, the 16-0 is only part of the reason to keep them in, not the entire reason. If I were coach, I would rotate in the second-string in the 4th quarter of the final 2 games IF we had a comfortable lead. That is the closest to resting the starters I would go. Not to mention I am sure the starters want to play all 16 games anyways.

I see where your coming from.. But i'm not worried about playing anyone else but Rodgers... Considering how bad our oLine has been playing..

In the end I really hope we only play Rodgers all the games if we remain undefeated.

 

[2411t]

I've said this plenty of times, but you only rest the starters that need to be rested.

 

[peteralan71]

Hell no. They will already have a week off which will throw them into a funk by messing with their tempo and schedule. No use giving them another week off then throwing them in cold during the divisional game.