Should a-rod have played?

[red]

i just can't get the idea out of my head that it was a mistake to not play a-rod in that final regular season game

sure you never want to risk your most valuable player in a meaningless game, but fact is, our QB went 2 full weeks without taking a game time snap.

rodgers looked "off" or "rusty" or something after 2 weeks off.it wasn't the same MVP we saw play in every other game this year

the last two superbowl champs were teams that got hot at the end of the year, and didn't rest or get a week off. they had to keep the pedal too the floor

so should he have played even if it was just a quarter or a half? let him prepare for a game and warmup and stay sharp knowing that they would already have the next week off?

or was it the right move and it was just a fluke or the giants d that caused a-rod to have his worst game by far of the year? obviously it wasn't rodgers fault that 40 of his passes were dropped and the defense looked like shit. but he still missed a lot of passes that he usually puts on a dime



thoughts?

[channtheman]

I agree he should have played, but I disagree that Rodgers looked way off in the playoff game. Rodgers was 26/46 264 yards. Add in the 8 drops and Rodgers is all of a sudden 34/46 easily over 300 yards (probably close to 350) and he has at least one more TD. I know it's not completely accurate to say this, but the point I am making is, the drops were much more a cause of the loss than Rodgers being "off." I would only say Rodgers was off on 2 throws. The Finley throw on 3rd down was bad, and then the Jennings throw for a TD early in the game (though Jennings appeared to turn the wrong way, so this one might not even be on Rodgers that much).

Despite the drops, I actually think the 2 fumbles by Kuhn and Grant are what really cost us this game. Take those away, and we probably win.

[sharpe1027]

Rodgers gets injured and everyone is screaming for MM's head. Damned if you do damned if you don't. And, I agree with channtheman, Rodgers didn't have his best game, but he played well enough. Especially when you consider all the first downs he picked up with his feet.

[pbmax]

Jennings, Clifton and Bulaga missing time and having relatively few snaps with the rest of the offense hurt more than Rodgers taking one game off. Not sure rotating Clifton and Newhouse was helping either. Starks missing time did not help his pass blocking. Finley's head being in an alternate dimension did not help at all in the second half of the season. You could see the effect of some of these departures in the games preceding the playoffs.

Rodgers took an entire offseason off, played next to nothing in preseason and blew the doors off the Saints. One week did not change his game that much. The Giants also had a very good D.

[Smeefers]

If rodgers gets hurt in the season finale with nothing on the line, it would have been horrible. Given the same circumstances, I sit him every time. It wasn't worth the risk.

[Upnorth]

I would have played him for the first quarter. Give him a bit of work, but mostly rest. Also hindsight is 20-20.

[Old School]

Here's a case where even hindsight isn't 20/20. It's impossible to make a real case without evidence to the contrary.

One thing we know is that if Rodgers had started the Lion game, the Lions would have been headhunting. They would have loved to hang their hats on knocking AR out of the playoffs. I say it was too big a risk.

Even allowing that AR "might" have been a little off, there are 10 other guys on offense. And the 11 on defense didn't exactly distinguish themselves either.

[mmmdk]

AR playing or not playing simply screams to the sky that too much emphasis was placed on our QB to win it all; last season Green Bay Packers won the SB as a team playing offense, defense, ST & good coaching as well.

Wether AR played or not versus Lions in week 17 is not the real Q here!

[channtheman]

I actually don't think it would have been such a problem if Rodgers had been knocked out of the Lions game. After all, we have a record setting QB right behind him. ;)

And mmmdk nailed it. Last year, we were a team, this year we were Rodgers. I just hope we don't suffer through 7 more years of being great because of Rodgers, but never winning another Super Bowl.

[sharpe1027]

I disagree that this year's team relied more upon Rodgers than last year's team. Sure, Rodgers played even better than last year, but they went 15-1 because of it. They played better on ST and on Offense this year as a whole, not just because of Rodgers. This team is not the Colts, it is closer to the Patriots. If Rodgers didn't play a down last year, I think that they'd still have had a great shot at making the playoffs with about 10 wins. Rodgers playing, however, means 5 more wins.

Just my opinion, and no way to really prove it. The best evidence is probably the Detroit game where Rodger's didn't even play a snap.

[Jimx29]

there's absolutely no doubt in my mind had he played at least the first half, he wouldn't of been off a couple degrees which is what was in my opinion why there were drops.

[sharpe1027]

My vague recollection was that the drops hit the receiver square in the hands for an otherwise easy catch. There's no use in blaming Rodgers for that.

Even if he played against Detroit, he still would have had an entire week off. Where's the cut-off? After all, he went 21-26 with 4TDs coming off the bye week. Is 7 days OK, but 8 days too much? 9? 10? When is it such sure thing that you can have no doubt? Maybe the time off was part of the problem, but maybe he has a bad game against Detroit and it makes him even worse than the time off. One thing is relatively certain, getting hurt doesn't help his play.

[PA Pack Fan]

I would only say Rodgers was off on 2 throws. You need to watch the game again.

[sharpe1027]

You need to watch the game again.

I agree that he missed several more than 2. He has had much better games.

[Pugger]

But his passes got worse the more our WRs dropped them. I'm sure he began to press and try to do too much. I don't think his average performance - he wasn't great, we are just accustomed to brilliant play by our fabulous QB - was because he didn't play against Detroit. I don't blame any one player or group of players/coaches for that disappointment. There is plenty of blame to go around for everybody. :-(

[King Friday]

I said from the start that resting players is ALWAYS a bad idea. The FACT is that the hottest teams, not the healthiest teams, are who win playoff games. The Giants this year, the Packers last year, etc, etc, etc.

You can't gain momentum by having your ass on the bench.

[Joemailman]

2 years ago, the Saints won their first 13, lost their last 3, rested Brees the last game, and won the Super Bowl. I think the Philbin situation affected the offense more than the fact that Rodgers didn't play against the Lions. The fact that Jennings was coming off an injury and hadn't played in about 5 weeks may have been a factor.

[denverYooper]

2 years ago, the Saints won their first 13, lost their last 3, rested Brees the last game, and won the Super Bowl. I think the Philbin situation affected the offense more than the fact that Rodgers didn't play against the Lions. The fact that Jennings was coming off an injury and hadn't played in about 5 weeks may have been a factor.

Lang's father also died in the break.

The Giants caught the Packers at an opportune time--still in a somewhat of an existential stupor.

[denverYooper]

A-rod should have played last night.

[MJZiggy]

Lang's father also died in the break.

The Giants caught the Packers at an opportune time--still in a somewhat of an existential stupor.
What these guys said. I've had people ask me why they lost. I've said that I think Coach's son had some effect. Those who didn't know say "Oh my GOD, well of COURSE!" I don't think we give that as much power to get into people's heads as it really has. I think it was a large mixture of factors, but I don't think A-Rod sitting had all that much to do with it. As others said, the Lions have proven this year that they believe the actual rules to be sort of optional...

[MadtownPacker]

Should ARod had played? Why? The real question is should the entire team have played vs the giants. They werent right in every way. Focus was lost and I guess that comes back to M3. SB win gets him a pass IMO. Shit happens but I look forward to next season. Oh btw, Fuck #1 seeds and homefield, especially when fans sell it to visiting fans.

[pbmax]

The Colts also beat the Bears for a Super Bowl win after resting players.

I am not so convinced that being 10-6 or 9-7 and having to play 3 games at the end of the season prepares any team for the playoffs. Nor am I convinced that playing Wild Card weekend helps the following week that much.

But I do think that both the Packers and Giants demonstrated (or revealed) with those late season theatrics that they were already elite and that the talent on hand was sufficient. In Green Bay's case last season, the offense recovered from its lackluster mid-season episode and found Starks highly useful and Masthay helped raise the ST unit above atrocious. Basically, by the end of the season the Packers had recovered from the injury losses, not the players themselves, but the team's former level of play as their replacements were worthy of starting in the playoffs. And McCarthy and his coaches found ways to use them effectively.

The Giants defense got healthy. And that was basically the difference between the inconsistent Giants and the end of season Giants. Yes, Victor Cruz was a revelation, but that was not a late season development. And while Jacobs (esp.) and Bradshaw had some of their better running games later in the season, they still were stopped far more often in 2011-12 than in 2007-8.

You put players who have demonstrated on the field (the more recently, the better) that they can successfully play playoff caliber ball, and give coaches a chance to adjust, then being hot at the end of the season is a matter of schedule, timing and injury prognosis. Not momentum or just getting hot.

This year, the Packers had some of the most troubling problems crop up at the end of the season, especially on offense. Finley could not get his head glued back on straight. Rodgers cooled off slightly. Bulaga, Sherrod and Clifton were hurt and the two starters returned very late to the starting lineup. The Clifton/Newhouse timeshare was not good for either player I don't think. Lang had to switch positions.

Jennings returned just in time for the playoff loss and didn't look the same. These were enough to knock the offense off its moorings. And it wasn't because Rodgers didn't start in Week 17, but because the key departures and recovery all had to happen in the last month of the season. Even the defense raising the level of its resistance to the run wasn't enough to offset the offensive dip.

As coaches say, its all about being as healthy as possible. But it might be that being healthy by the playoffs is not enough. You need your playoff caliber players to be playing in December, regardless of whether they missed time earlier in the season. Its not Week 17. Its Weeks 12-16.

[Gunakor]

Rodgers took an entire offseason off, played next to nothing in preseason and blew the doors off the Saints.


This argument should have ended right here. Rust does not set in over a span of a couple weeks in January when it doesn't set in over a span of several months during spring and summer. Fault lies somewhere else for that loss. No, Rodgers should not have played in week 17.

[Pugger]

What these guys said. I've had people ask me why they lost. I've said that I think Coach's son had some effect. Those who didn't know say "Oh my GOD, well of COURSE!" I don't think we give that as much power to get into people's heads as it really has. I think it was a large mixture of factors, but I don't think A-Rod sitting had all that much to do with it. As others said, the Lions have proven this year that they believe the actual rules to be sort of optional...

I and others speculated that the team from the coaches on down were still in mourning and were not ready to play a team full of confidence, piss and vinegar. A lot of people dismissed this theory but I suspect it was an underlying reason why the team - especially on offense - looked so unlike themselves.

[red]

my thinking is, when you have a player who's in the zone, you don't pull him out of the game

you don't do anything to try and break his rhythm

as for him looking just fine week one after being off all offseason. he still prepared and played in the preseason games leading up to week one

i think we've all seen from watching college ball that teams show up in bowl games looking like totally different teams after having almost a month off

[Brandon494]

Does Rodgers playing or not have anything to do with Kuhn or Grant fumbling? Or the hail marry at halftime? Or the drop passes by our WRs?

[MadtownPacker]

Does Rodgers playing or not have anything to do with Kuhn or Grant fumbling? Or the hail marry at halftime? Or the drop passes by our WRs?
Dammmmnnnn!!! I thought AROd was White. :lol:

[Gunakor]

my thinking is, when you have a player who's in the zone, you don't pull him out of the game

you don't do anything to try and break his rhythm

as for him looking just fine week one after being off all offseason. he still prepared and played in the preseason games leading up to week one

i think we've all seen from watching college ball that teams show up in bowl games looking like totally different teams after having almost a month off


Most of the guys who dropped the ball against the Giants did in fact play a game against the Lions 2 weeks prior to that. Played it very well too. But Jordy looked rusty, Grant looked rusty, Kuhn looked rusty... And the fault for that lies with Rodgers because he didn't play the week 17 game?

It's bigger than any individual player, including Rodgers. The ENTIRE offense was off that day. It wasn't just Aaron. Just a coincidence I suppose that a rather tragic off the field event occured during the lead up to that game, an event far more likely to rattle an entire team than the absence of one superstar player for one week of the season. I don't buy the rust angle. It's remarkably apparent that Joe Philbin meant a whole lot more to this offense than we had given him credit for. His loss affected everybody, and THAT is what was readily apparent to me as I watched that playoff game. It wasn't rust, it was bigger than that. Bigger than football. I think I'll give them a pass. Life happens sometimes, that's the angle I'm buying. The team was ready, and then life happened. Time to move on.

[pbmax]

I wonder of Kansas City messed up Nelson's work at the end of the year. Two penalties would cause someone to stop and think about what they are doing. I think the Packers will spend a significant amount of time working to release against man coverage this offseason.

[Pugger]

I wonder of Kansas City messed up Nelson's work at the end of the year. Two penalties would cause someone to stop and think about what they are doing. I think the Packers will spend a significant amount of time working to release against man coverage this offseason.

The week after the KC game Jordy caught 6 passes for 115 yards and 2 TDs against the bares and 9 passes for 162 yerds and 3 TDs the next week against the loins. He, along with everyone else on offense, had anemic stats against the gnats in that playoff game.

[denverYooper]

I wonder of Kansas City messed up Nelson's work at the end of the year. Two penalties would cause someone to stop and think about what they are doing. I think the Packers will spend a significant amount of time working to release against man coverage this offseason.

They're going to have to. Any team that can pull it off is going to go at the Packers' WR corps that way until they can reliably beat it.

I think working Cobb into the offense more could change the coverage landscape, too.