Well that team had 3 in the roster, not 2. And if Fisher was injured the previous week and questionable then it would be a more apt comparison. Anyway I'm not trying to belabor the point. But looking at the moves the Packers have made the last few weeks, and looking at what moves other teams make to cover their ass, I think it's fair to say the situation was mishandled. An unnecessary gamble in my opinion.
It wouldn't matter if they had 10, if nine were injured and unavailable. They still went into the game with one.Originally Posted by yetisnowman
Lacy was cleared to play. That is really all MM needed to concern himself with about Lacy. Dinged up players gut it through all the time.
Sorry but this is ridiculous. I'm sure coaches adjust their gameplan and strategy based on the health of their players, even when they are cleared to play. Well the smart ones do. But I guess McCarthy is just expected to know who's active and who's not, as opposed to any nuance or detail involving his best players.
Last edited by yetisnowman; 10-30-2016 at 11:18 AM.
Was there anything Lacy couldn't do? Not from the way he played. He ran as well as he has anytime the last two years. If he was limited in some way, of course the coach would adjust. If not, the you play your regular game.
If the injury was such that playing could be expected to make it worse, that's on the medical staff. Coaches don't, and shouldn't make medical decisions.
+1
He was noticeably limping after the first couple carries. It was a pre-existing injury. Lacy has a history of foot and ankle issues. You continue to act like what happened to Lacy vs Dallas occurred in a vacuum. The staff rolled the dice, had their fingers crossed, held their breath.....and we know the rest. Agree to disagree
Things changed a lot in that week. Abbrederis got hurt. Lacy became bad enough that putting him on the shelf for a couple months was acceptable, Banjo reinjured himself again. I think a week earlier they hoped all could factor into the end of the season, as well as Shields. Then there was Rollins injury before the game, and Randall during the game. They got to the point that the injury list was longer than the game day inactive list, so somethings had to be done.
I just don't see a huge risk when they had two other guys who could play out of the backfield. Again, at this far into the season, teams are always taking chances with their rosters.
HOFer
has anyone mentioned the failure of our training staff and coaches?
we had a player who was less then 100%, and obviously had an injury that could become worse
it did get worse, and now he might be gone for the year
i mentioned it...said the whole running back situation was tantamount to negligence on tt's part.
They'll need a running game to keep teams honest and for bad weather, but I'm ok with dink and dunk.
Getting 6 yards on 1st down with a dumpoff is still a plus play for the offense, and keeps them in favorable down/distance.
I think Davis/Jackson, Starks, and Ty can probably get them through...but yes, having Lacy would be nice. Starks' injury was bad timing.
They won a SB with Brandon Jackson and James Starks; they aren't SOL at RB yet.
I agree, we need someone to power the ball. But NE has gone dink and dunk for years now and it has worked but they have Blount to keep the other team honest. Helps to have field stretching TE also. I wish Cook was still healthy.
But Rodgers leads the league in frumpy expressions and negative body language on the sideline, which makes him, like Josh Allen, a unique double threat.
-Tim Harmston
Ya, hindsight is the pleasure of the fan. I had a bad feeling about Lacy during the game. I would have sat Lacy or any back with a suspect ankle. But especially Lacy, as he is a critical resource to be protected for the season. "Cleared to play" is just the start of the coach's decision, not the final word, IMO.
HOFer
i agree with this 100%
just because you can, doesn't mean you should
So which two are you cutting to sign two running backs a week earlier?
Last edited by pbmax; 10-30-2016 at 03:38 PM.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
I agree with Harlan purely because I'm in a bad mood.
One time Lombardi was disgusted with the team in practice and told them they were going to have to start with the basics. He held up a ball and said: "This is a football." McGee immediately called out, "Stop, coach, you're going too fast," and that gave everyone a laugh.
John Maxymuk, Packers By The Numbers
HOFer
yes, IMO a coach should be able to make that basic kind of medical determination
player is hurt and can make it worse, maybe don't risk him for a couple weeks
LIKE THEY DO WITH EVERY OTHER MINOR FUCKING BUMP OR SCRAPE ON THIS TEAM
how many months have we seen other guys held out because of ankle issues in the past? but not the fattest one out of the group, he says he's good to go, you you let him go
and when he starts limping like crazy out of the gate, clearly hurt, you just leave him in
in horse racing, as soon as a jockey feels any little thing wrong with the horse, he pulls it up to prevent the horse from doing more damage. and the horse would do more damage because its stupid and only knows one thing, to run. maybe fat mike should have prevented his horse from destroying himself and the season
he doesn't call the plays (thats a-rod doing his own thing), he doesn't do anything at practice but stand and watch (zook runs practice and the other coaches yell and make corrections), he can't game plan or make adjustments, if he can't look out for the players, then what the hell is the point of M3?
HOFer
easy, janis and barclay and shouldn't be on this team
at the time we had 7 wr's i think, we only ever use 3. and janis doesn't get it
And today would you put Knile Davis at WR?
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
HOFer
yes, because you need more then 5 wr's
They did split KD wide on some plays. Odd.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote