Time To Shut Down Eddie Lacy

[VolvoD]

. Winning isn't everything.

It's the only thing.

 

[adambr2]

Frankly, I think the fact that Lacy participated in the Pro Bowl of all games highlights how silly the concept of shutting him down a month ago was.

Not many players are near 100% near the end of the season. And a serious injury could happen any game. But the very concept of resting guys just based on a worry that they might become injured when your entire season is on the line is mind-blowing to me. It's the NFL.

Before anyone mentions Rodgers on that note, a broken collarbone can be a very risky injury. Broken collarbones that are not fully healed can rebreak and puncture the lungs and be a serious medical risk. It's not the same thing. They did the right thing to be cautious on Rodgers.

 

[ExpatPacker]

I'm just glad to see that Lacy was able to play through the injury and healthy enough to participate in the Pro Bowl. That bodes well for his future since his foot injury was a major concern when he was drafted.

 

[El Guapo]

Frankly, I think the fact that Lacy participated in the Pro Bowl of all games highlights how silly the concept of shutting him down a month ago was.

As I think that it's equally silly to belittle a serious ankle issue sustained 3-weeks in a row by your RB of the future. I'm glad that injury luck was on Lacy's and the Packers' side during the last few games.

 

[adambr2]

As I think that it's equally silly to belittle a serious ankle issue sustained 3-weeks in a row by your RB of the future. I'm glad that injury luck was on Lacy's and the Packers' side during the last few games.

Who belittled it? I was simply pointing out that Lacy's participation in the Pro Bowl pretty clearly indicates that he was plenty healthy to finish out the season for us. I hardly think that Lacy would have played through a "serious" ankle issue in the Pro Bowl.

Given how conservative they were with Rodgers, don't you think MM and Co. would have kept Lacy sidelined at the end of the season if the ankle injury was as serious as you are suggesting and an elevated risk was present?

 

[NOMOFO]

Sitting him out is one thing. .... reducing his workload is another. I do hope the manage his workload next year.

 

[adambr2]

Sitting him out is one thing. .... reducing his workload is another. I do hope the manage his workload next year.

Absolutely...he should still get plenty of touches, but no reason not to work Franklin and/or Harris and/or Starks into the mix.

First time in a long time we have absolutely no need at RB.

 

[El Guapo]

But the very concept of resting guys just based on a worry that they might become injured

I called this statement "belittling" his injury. I wasn't just worried about a player becoming injured. He re-injured the same ankle three weeks in a row. That tells me that there was something wrong and the threat of a more serious injury was real - not just perceived or feared.

I think a lot of us got caught up in salvaging a mediocre season by pushing Lacy to keep playing. Who doesn't love a guy that plays through pain for victory. Shoot, I've done it countless times myself. There's a million people to replace me but not Lacy.

It just seemed dumb (to me) to risk a more severe injury to our back-of-the-future when we had a healthy Starks and a dim shot at winning the SB. I know that I'm in the minority here but I'll stick with my view, because I don't think that the outcome (not sustaining further injury) justifies the decision to play him.

 

[adambr2]

I called this statement "belitltling" his injury. I wasn't just worried about a player becoming injured. He re-injured the same ankle three weeks in a row. That tells me that there was something wrong and the threat of a more serious injury was real - not just perceived or feared.

I think a lot of us got caught up in salvaging a mediocre season by pushing Lacy to keep playing. Who doesn't love a guy that plays through pain for victory. Shoot, I've done it countless times myself. There's a million people to replace me but not Lacy.

It just seemed dumb (to me) to risk a more severe injury to our back-of-the-future when we had a healthy Starks and a dim shot at winning the SB. I know that I'm in the minority here but I'll stick with my view, because I don't think that the outcome (not sustaining further injury) justifies the decision to play him.

So what? Guys have recurring injuries that last multiple weeks all the time. Just off the top of my head, both Larry Fitzgerald and Adrian Peterson battled such injuries this year that they were able to play through for the most part but with great difficulty. Just shut a guy down for the year every time this occurs?

Unless you are in the medical profession, neither your or I are qualified to know if Lacy's recurring injury caused ANY increased risk of a more severe injury that could cause issues in the future, regardless of how many weeks in a row he had been battling a bad ankle.

Also, I don't think anyone was caught up in salvaging a "mediocre" season. For one, many were calling for more carries for Starks, who was also running well, so I don't think there was anybody calling to run Lacy into the ground, just that there was certainly no need to shut Lacy down for the season.

Also, any season that you win your division is not a mediocre season, I don't care what your record is. The Giants won the Super Bowl 2 years ago at 9-7, beating our 15-1 squad. We nearly pulled it off against one of the best. We didn't, so we'll be left forever wondering what would have happened after, but you always fight for that opportunity as long as you're in it.

 

[El Guapo]

Playing through an injury is different than re-injuring your ankle each Sunday, which is what happened to Lacy. He twisted it in the Falcons game, didn't practice all week, hurt it again in a great performance against the Cowboys, and then sprained it yet again against the Steelers and did not return to the game. Heavily-tapped up he admitted to struggling to push off in the final two games.

That's not toughing it out, it's making it worse IMO. Especially for an injury-plagued team like the Packers, it still seems foolish to potentially risk losing him for an entire off-season.

For reference, Lacy averaged 3.1 yards/attempt versus the Bears while Starks averaged 8.0 yards/attempt. In the playoff game, Lacy averaged 3.8 yards/attempt while Starks averaged 5.8 yards/attempt. I'm not sure what we gained out of featuring a gimpy Lacy versus a healthy Starks. I know what we gambled though.

 

[yooperpackfan]

Playing through an injury is different than re-injuring your ankle each Sunday, which is what happened to Lacy. He twisted it in the Falcons game, didn't practice all week, hurt it again in a great performance against the Cowboys, and then sprained it yet again against the Steelers and did not return to the game. Heavily-tapped up he admitted to struggling to push off in the final two games.

That's not toughing it out, it's making it worse IMO. Especially for an injury-plagued team like the Packers, it still seems foolish to potentially risk losing him for an entire off-season.

For reference, Lacy averaged 3.1 yards/attempt versus the Bears while Starks averaged 8.0 yards/attempt. In the playoff game, Lacy averaged 3.8 yards/attempt while Starks averaged 5.8 yards/attempt. I'm not sure what we gained out of featuring a gimpy Lacy versus a healthy Starks. I know what we gambled though.

That was perhaps the one stroke of luck that the Pack had injury wise, and that was that Lacy didn't end up with a more severe injury.

 

[jaybadger82]

Playing through an injury is different than re-injuring your ankle each Sunday, which is what happened to Lacy. He twisted it in the Falcons game, didn't practice all week, hurt it again in a great performance against the Cowboys, and then sprained it yet again against the Steelers and did not return to the game. Heavily-tapped up he admitted to struggling to push off in the final two games.

That's not toughing it out, it's making it worse IMO. Especially for an injury-plagued team like the Packers, it still seems foolish to potentially risk losing him for an entire off-season.

For reference, Lacy averaged 3.1 yards/attempt versus the Bears while Starks averaged 8.0 yards/attempt. In the playoff game, Lacy averaged 3.8 yards/attempt while Starks averaged 5.8 yards/attempt. I'm not sure what we gained out of featuring a gimpy Lacy versus a healthy Starks. I know what we gambled though.

The yards per attempt numbers you cite are a bit distorted because Lacy was taking the lion's share of the work while Starks saw more spot usage. As a result, Starks had fresher legs and was more explosive with his runs.

I agree with your point, though: Lacy's workload toward the end of the season was too much for a rookie power back with a busted wheel. Starks should have received more touches.

Lacy's career won't last long if our staff can't find a way to limit his touches. Feature backs don't last in today's NFL.

 

[El Guapo]

Well either way, I'm done discussing this topic and looking forward to next season...and a healthy Eddie Lacy

 

[adambr2]

Playing through an injury is different than re-injuring your ankle each Sunday, which is what happened to Lacy. He twisted it in the Falcons game, didn't practice all week, hurt it again in a great performance against the Cowboys, and then sprained it yet again against the Steelers and did not return to the game. Heavily-tapped up he admitted to struggling to push off in the final two games.

That's not toughing it out, it's making it worse IMO. Especially for an injury-plagued team like the Packers, it still seems foolish to potentially risk losing him for an entire off-season.

For reference, Lacy averaged 3.1 yards/attempt versus the Bears while Starks averaged 8.0 yards/attempt. In the playoff game, Lacy averaged 3.8 yards/attempt while Starks averaged 5.8 yards/attempt. I'm not sure what we gained out of featuring a gimpy Lacy versus a healthy Starks. I know what we gambled though.

But again, you or I have no way of knowing if he was ever at an elevated risk of missing an entire off-season by continuing to play or if the risk was the same but it was just a matter of playing through pain. I certainly trust that the coaches and doctors, who were ultra-conservative with Rodgers nearly to the point of losing the division, would have not suddenly thrown caution to the wind when it came to Lacy.

If any of these twists or sprains would have been of a serious nature, do you really think he would have willingly participated in a meaningless exhibition game a month later?

Also, pointing out Lacy's YPC against the Bears is a little misleading.. Lacy played exceptionally well against Dallas and Pittsburgh, and still played well against the 49ers. His YPC that game was comparable to his season average. Starks averaging 5.8 YPC that game tells us nothing. It's a lot different to carry the ball 21 times versus carrying the ball 5 times. Lacy had one off game against the Bears. It happens. There's nothing else to indicate that the injury was affecting his performance.

 

[jaybadger82]

Your arguments aren't very persuasive to the view that Lacy wasn't at an elevated risk for injury/re-injury at the end of the season:

The Rodgers comparison is ridiculous because the Packers will be far more careful with their franchise player than a running back, a relatively disposable position, on a rookie contract. This is the same staff the cleared Hayward and Matthews to return before they were re-injured as well.

The Pro Bowl comes after four weeks of rest for Lacy and he sure as hell won't be taking 20+ carries. He's probably interested in making an appearance in order to shore up support in a relatively close Offensive Rookie of the Year race with Keenan Allen.

I'm not very clear what you're arguing about at this point, but to say Lacy was used prudently down the stretch is foolish. It doesn't take a medical degree to recognize that we piled a lot of mileage on him last year, especially at the end of the season, that probably should have been siphoned off to other ball carriers (319 total touches!). He's going to have a short career at this pace.

 

[NOMOFO]

Your arguments aren't very persuasive to the view that Lacy wasn't at an elevated risk for injury/re-injury at the end of the season:

The Rodgers comparison is ridiculous because the Packers will be far more careful with their franchise player than a running back, a relatively disposable position, on a rookie contract. This is the same staff the cleared Hayward and Matthews to return before they were re-injured as well.

The Pro Bowl comes after four weeks of rest for Lacy and he sure as hell won't be taking 20+ carries. He's probably interested in making an appearance in order to shore up support in a relatively close Offensive Rookie of the Year race with Keenan Allen.

I'm not very clear what you're arguing about at this point, but to say Lacy was used prudently down the stretch is foolish. It doesn't take a medical degree to recognize that we piled a lot of mileage on him last year, especially at the end of the season, that probably should have been siphoned off to other ball carriers (319 total touches!). He's going to have a short career at this pace.

Again...c'mon... we so often around here just are not analytical about things at all. You're making comparisons to broken collar bones to pulled muscles to broken fingers. All of these injuries literally share nothing in common as far as their potential for long-term injury potential and re-injury and serious injury. We should really stop trying to make issues where there are none.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The Rodgers comparison is ridiculous because the Packers will be far more careful with their franchise player than a running back, a relatively disposable position, on a rookie contract. This is the same staff the cleared Hayward and Matthews to return before they were re-injured as well.

I think you´re completely wrong assuming the Packers would risk the long-term health of Lacy recklessly. In addition the Packers don´t think the guy is easy disposable, as it took them quite some time to find an impact RB.

 

[NOMOFO]

I think you´re completely wrong assuming the Packers would risk the long-term health of Lacy recklessly. In addition the Packers don´t think the guy is easy disposable, as it took them quite some time to find an impact RB.

agreed... the Packers are known to play it very cautiously with injuries and we have zero medical proof to suggest otherwise with the Lacy issue. I mean...what? We think we can medically diagnose somebody over the TV screen just by looking at their limp?

I keep hearing comments about how tough Lacey is...and I'm not saying he's not... but do you know how many guys line up and play with major dents and dings every week and we don't know about it...because they don't limp around and show it?

 

[jaybadger82]

We should really stop trying to make issues where there are none.

I think managing a RB's workload is a legitimate issue for discussion on a fan message board, NOMOFO, and it seems stupid to dismiss a topic in one post, then continue piling on a few minutes later.

agreed... the Packers are known to play it very cautiously with injuries and we have zero medical proof to suggest otherwise with the Lacy issue. I mean...what? We think we can medically diagnose somebody over the TV screen just by looking at their limp?

On the same token, you have zero medical proof that there wasn't an issue with Lacy (not to mention zero medical proof to support the premise that the Packers play it "very cautiously with injuries"). Neither of us are doctors and- even if we were- we don't have access to the medical information necessary to develop an informed opinion. Maybe it's time we stop citing information we don't have to support or undermine arguments in this thread.

What we can observe was Lacy's recurring limp over the last few weeks of the season and it doesn't take a doctor to understand this reflects a medical issue. How extensive? -We don't know, except the staff continued to lean on Lacy for 20+ carries each week...

I keep hearing comments about how tough Lacey is...and I'm not saying he's not... but do you know how many guys line up and play with major dents and dings every week and we don't know about it...because they don't limp around and show it?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Lacy's injury was a non-issue but he shouldn't have been limping around?

I think you´re completely wrong assuming the Packers would risk the long-term health of Lacy recklessly.

It doesn't advance the discussion if you're going to attack an argument I haven't been making (in rhetoric this is called a straw man).

To be clear, I'm simply expressing concern because: (1) Lacy was given too much work toward the end of the season, at a time when he was hobbled by a bad ankle and we had a healthy Starks available to siphon off carries; and (2) going forward, I worry that Lacy won't last his rookie contract if we don't manage his work more intelligently (i.e., use our other assets at RB and/or find a complementary back). I like our assets to last.

We'll see what happens. I've said my piece, so I'll **** off now.

 

[NOMOFO]

I think managing a RB's workload is a legitimate issue for discussion on a fan message board, NOMOFO, and it seems stupid to dismiss a topic in one post, then continue piling on a few minutes later.



On the same token, you have zero medical proof that there wasn't an issue with Lacy (not to mention zero medical proof to support the premise that the Packers play it "very cautiously with injuries"). Neither of us are doctors and- even if we were- we don't have access to the medical information necessary to develop an informed opinion. Maybe it's time we stop citing information we don't have to support or undermine arguments in this thread.

What we can observe was Lacy's recurring limp over the last few weeks of the season and it doesn't take a doctor to understand this reflects a medical issue. How extensive? -We don't know, except the staff continued to lean on Lacy for 20+ carries each week...



I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Lacy's injury was a non-issue but he shouldn't have been limping around?



It doesn't advance the discussion if you're going to attack an argument I haven't been making (in rhetoric this is called a straw man).

To be clear, I'm simply expressing concern because: (1) Lacy was given too much work toward the end of the season, at a time when he was hobbled by a bad ankle and we had a healthy Starks available to siphon off carries; and (2) going forward, I worry that Lacy won't last his rookie contract if we don't manage his work more intelligently (i.e., use our other assets at RB and/or find a complementary back). I like our assets to last.

We'll see what happens. I've said my piece, so I'll **** off now.

You were comparing injuries not us. That was the point. You were questioning that one player was sat and another played. Not exactly sure why you are now spinning away from that but that's what you said.

...and I'm not so sure how much clearer I could have been. The fact that some guy is limping around doesn't make you a doctor. I tend to agree and have said as much, that they should monitor Lacey next season and watch his workload. That's not however the gist of what you posted here, up until this last post.

 

[jaybadger82]

Well, I think you should reread this thread because you seem confused about what I've said.

 

[adambr2]

Your arguments aren't very persuasive to the view that Lacy wasn't at an elevated risk for injury/re-injury at the end of the season:

The Rodgers comparison is ridiculous because the Packers will be far more careful with their franchise player than a running back, a relatively disposable position, on a rookie contract. This is the same staff the cleared Hayward and Matthews to return before they were re-injured as well.

The Pro Bowl comes after four weeks of rest for Lacy and he sure as hell won't be taking 20+ carries. He's probably interested in making an appearance in order to shore up support in a relatively close Offensive Rookie of the Year race with Keenan Allen.

I'm not very clear what you're arguing about at this point, but to say Lacy was used prudently down the stretch is foolish. It doesn't take a medical degree to recognize that we piled a lot of mileage on him last year, especially at the end of the season, that probably should have been siphoned off to other ball carriers (319 total touches!). He's going to have a short career at this pace.

Nice, this wasn't condesending at all.

I never once argued to run Lacy into the ground. Heck, I was arguing late in the season for more touches for Starks. Lacy's workload is an entirely different discussion.

I was simply arguing that shutting down Lacy in Week 17 with the division on the line was unnecessary and we should trust the judgment of the coaching staff and medical team. That's IT. That's all I was ever arguing.

Also kind of ridiculous that you say we should stop citing information we don't have. I wasn't! That was my whole point. We don't have the medical information to say Lacy should be shut down. So why are we saying he should have been?

Yet you seem to imply that the medical staff was in some way to blame for the reinjuries to Hayward and Matthews.

Lacy's workload is a legitimate issue but that's not ever something I argued against so why you came after me for citing there was simply not a need to shut him down that we medically knew of, I have no idea.

All of Harris, Franklin, and Starks may be on this team next year. They have other options and will be mindful of Lacy's workload.

 

[NOMOFO]

Well, I think you should reread this thread because you seem confused about what I've said.

OK... I, like adam, have no clue how you think we misread your posts... but... whatever. I agree with you that Lacey's carries need to be managed next year. We are in complete agreement on that.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

It doesn't advance the discussion if you're going to attack an argument I haven't been making (in rhetoric this is called a straw man).

I'm not sure how I attacked you by saying that I think it's wrong the Packers won't recklessly risk long-term injury to Lacy. But I get there are some posters here that just can't accept somebody else not agreeing with them.

To be clear, I'm simply expressing concern because: (1) Lacy was given too much work toward the end of the season, at a time when he was hobbled by a bad ankle and we had a healthy Starks available to siphon off carries; and (2) going forward, I worry that Lacy won't last his rookie contract if we don't manage his work more intelligently (i.e., use our other assets at RB and/or find a complementary back). I like our assets to last.

I'm fine with limiting his carries, though I'm not as pessimistic about his future than you are. Jerome Bettis, a RB similar to Eddie, average over 280 touches a season over a 13-year career did fine. I think Lacy has just to start playing a little bit smarter, not taking too many unnecessary hits.

Not running him with only some ticks left in the first half in our own end could help as well.

 

[HyponGrey]

I think managing a RB's workload is a legitimate issue for discussion on a fan message board, NOMOFO, and it seems stupid to dismiss a topic in one post, then continue piling on a few minutes later.



On the same token, you have zero medical proof that there wasn't an issue with Lacy (not to mention zero medical proof to support the premise that the Packers play it "very cautiously with injuries"). Neither of us are doctors and- even if we were- we don't have access to the medical information necessary to develop an informed opinion. Maybe it's time we stop citing information we don't have to support or undermine arguments in this thread.

What we can observe was Lacy's recurring limp over the last few weeks of the season and it doesn't take a doctor to understand this reflects a medical issue. How extensive? -We don't know, except the staff continued to lean on Lacy for 20+ carries each week...



I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Lacy's injury was a non-issue but he shouldn't have been limping around?



It doesn't advance the discussion if you're going to attack an argument I haven't been making (in rhetoric this is called a straw man).

To be clear, I'm simply expressing concern because: (1) Lacy was given too much work toward the end of the season, at a time when he was hobbled by a bad ankle and we had a healthy Starks available to siphon off carries; and (2) going forward, I worry that Lacy won't last his rookie contract if we don't manage his work more intelligently (i.e., use our other assets at RB and/or find a complementary back). I like our assets to last.

We'll see what happens. I've said my piece, so I'll **** off now.

Lacy is going to get, and rightfully should get 20 carries a week. That's just fact. He does need a more active spell back, though to keep it at just 20. We seriously don't want any long term issues, Eddie has enough of those already with his toe and thumb. I firmly believe had we had Harris available, or Franklin available with Starks, we would have reduced Lacy's carries at the end of the year. The fact that we didn't use Starks speaks volumes about Starks. Personally it seems we were more worried about limiting Starks' carries than we were the guy wearing a boot during the week. Once again, that speaks about Starks. The fact that Lacy was wearing a boot during the week shows that limp was serious, and as conservative as our staff is, we had a rash of returning players that didn't seem coincidental (especially considering how much fire our med staff was under). It's not a stretch to think they may have "relaxed" their standards to keep players on the field for a PR boost.