At this point in the season I can't believe there is a lot to choose from.Originally Posted by red
At this point in the season I can't believe there is a lot to choose from.
It should have never gotten to this point. Just another TT fuck up.
Let me see, the GM is at fault because both RBs get injured and need surgery. Probably true, because we don't have a first round draft pick sitting on the bench and two 3rd rounders that every other team wanted on the practice squad. Also the GMs fault that our top 3 CBs are unavailable because of injury and we don't have a couple of first rounders on the practice squad that we can call up for this very eventuality. Probably should have a Tony Romo type on the bench waiting to play if AR has accuracy issues against Atlanta. The GM also forgot to get that 2nd fast TE during the offseason in case Cook hurts his ankle. Pretty sure that the GM should have picked up 2 all pro WRs so that we could have 9 WRs on the roster in case Abby gets hurt or Davis and Janis don't progress.
What he said.
"The Devine era is actually worse than you remember if you go back and look at it."
KYPack
Yes, why wasn't Ted clairvoyant enough to see all of these injuries last summer?
Yeah except it was known Starks was missing a few weeks, and that Lacy was banged up before the Dallas game. And no moves were made to supplement the roster. So we attempted to play a game with a one legged tailback and two of our 4 best receivers at running back. Lacy is ran into the ground and requires surgery after the game. Of course that is a huge fuckup by TT/MM. No way to sugarcoat that. Your other points are mostly debateable. Obviously not about having 9 receivers on the roster, but our production from TE s , 2nd string running back, and our 5-7 receivers has been pathetic this season even when healthy. Largely what TT has created.
Thanks for saving me the typing. That was a spot on reply.
Obviously, another RB added to the roster before the Dallas game would have kept Lacy from being "run into the ground". Look at how many carries the 2 new RBs got in the Bears game. I believe that number was 4 or 5. This article talks about what happens when a player gets injured during a game and makes the injury report. http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/...ame-the-coach/
Condensing, it says he has to be cleared by the medical staff, team management has to be on board, and the player and his agent also have to agree that he's ready to play.
My recollection was that Starks didn't hIt the injury report until Tuesday or Wednesday of Dallas week. He had a personal issue that he had to take care of until Saturday when he had an MRI. He had surgery that evening or Sunday morning. The Packers implemented the Montgomery to RB during the week, and, I believe, would not have used Jackson much during the game had they activated him.
Lacy was cleared to play and aggravated his injury after carrying for almost 70 yds. Tough break, but I don't think it's on the GM.
I think you are being a bit naive. It's not as simple as just adding a guy to the roster. Someone has to be removed form the roster to add a player. The inactives for the Dallas game were Shields, Starks, Banjo, Rollins, Cook, Ringo and Murphy. The first five were there because of injury, the last two were healthy scratches, but players the team wants to keep for obvious reasons. At that point, I don't think they were willing to give up on the seasons for their best CB and their best ST performer. With injuries mounting, they were forced into writing them off for the season, but there wasn't a good enough reason to do so then.
The art of roster management is often one of getting by during short stretches without disrupting what you have. Montgomery was a HS running back who was converted to WR in college. Cobb has always taken snaps in the backfield. Hoping to get by with Lacy, Montgomery and Cobb for that game was not wrong, in my opinion.
I just disagree completely. Lacy has had reoccurring ankle issues and was clearly at about 75%. If we can see that in the game immediately. Obviously the staff saw that in practice. Unless we wanted Monty being our feature back,(who by the way is also coming back from a major ankle injury) it seemed pretty poorly planned. Couldn't the roster and gameplan have been managed the same vs Dallas and Chicago? Seems clear the Dallas game aggravated Lacy's injury. Which could have been avoided with a little more caution and discretion....I'm my opinion.
For being "75%" Lacy looked as good as he has at anytime in the last two years. If a RB is cleared to play, you play him as you would. There are always guys who are dinged up. If you adjust the roster or your game plan every time somebody isn't 100%, you would have guys coming and going every week and no consistency in the offense or defense.
Sometime the objective is to get through a game or two as best you can without upsetting the roster. They had contingency plans for getting through without Lacy. I don't think it was a bad decision at that time.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote