Another drama queen QB

[red]

will he play, won't he play

i'm fine, i'm not fine

i can play, i can't play

who does that sound like?

i'm gonna retire, i'm gonna play

i'm gonna play, but i might retire

why are we cursed with these guys?

nothing but drama with our QB's

[MadScientist]

Strategic misinformation. It is to the Packers benefit for the opposition to have to prepare for two QB's.

[Zool]

When he starts texting dick picks, we'll talk.

[red]

When he starts texting dick picks, we'll talk.

or wearing crocs?

[Bossman641]

Bit of a stretch with this one

[Fritz]

Bit of a stretch with this one

Agreed. Can't we talk about firing Slocum instead?

And the porous run defense?

[MadtownPacker]

Give it time, homeboy just hit his 30s so dirty old man status is coming soon.

[red]

does this look like a guy who would text dick pics?

http://www.totalpackers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/aaron-rodgers-movember-1.jpg

[channtheman]

does this look like a guy who would text dick pics?

http://www.totalpackers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/aaron-rodgers-movember-1.jpg

No, that looks like the guy that would receive dick pics.

[bobblehead]

Strategic misinformation. It is to the Packers benefit for the opposition to have to prepare for two QB's.

As opposed to keeping your GM and coach guessing if they need to replace you or not.

[Fritz]

Just listened to MM. He said Rodgers has not been medically cleared to play.

Sigh. A broken record.

[Cleft Crusty]

Just listened to MM. He said Rodgers has not been medically cleared to play.

Sigh. A broken record.

How long does a broken record take to heal? How many times can you CT scan it?

[Rutnstrut]

Just listened to MM. He said Rodgers has not been medically cleared to play.

Sigh. A broken record.

Shocking.

[woodbuck27]

Shocking.

I'm not now even cautiously optimistic that we'll receive good news today and Aaron Rodgers cleared to play Vs Pittsburgh.

Something is bothering me RE: that and any positive.

I hope this bad feeling is wrong because it's certainly doesn't have any basis in 'pessimism'.

I believe that Aaron Rodgers believes that he's ready to go and that the situation now and particularly in regards to good timing is excellent for his return.

You have to listen and observe Aaron Rodgers very carefully. How he speaks ie last week and moreso recently in regards to any reporter/media questions and a view on his return for possibly more insight. He's acting very guarded in terms of saying the right things ... just right .....to the point it seems over the top.

What the heck is this reaction in Aaron Rodgers I observe?

Well I'll use this word...* 'co-dependent'. Can that possibly be the TRUTH!?? I'll admit caution using *that word*; but what in blue blazes is with his guarded demeanor?

Am I out to lunch in my observation?

[CaptainKickass]

I was curious as to timetable for return on a broken collarbone injury, specifically for the Packers as an organization since we know they tend to be ultra conservative with players and seem to hold them out longer than most other teams. So I just looked it up -

When Woodson broke his collarbone in October of 2011, Woodson missed NINE WEEKS total.

I don't know why any of you fuckers or the media choose to believe that there is any chance of Rodgers playing before then. The precedent on collarbone timetables by this medical staff (McKenzie) was set a long ass time ago.

That precedent is 9 weeks.

[Freak Out]

Yes...but Wood is supposed to make tackles as a living.

[woodbuck27]

I don't know why any of you fuckers or the media choose to believe that there is any chance of Rodgers playing before then. The precedent on collarbone timetables by this medical staff (McKenzie) was set a long ass time ago.

That precedent is 9 weeks.

So Captain.... When do you believe that Aaron Rodgers is back at the earliest?

[CaptainKickass]

Yes...but Wood is supposed to make tackles as a living.

And this statement changes anything how?

Here's another thought: If Rodgers (being the franchise QB he is and all) is more important than Woodson was, wouldn't it stand to reason that Rodgers would be held out longer?

[CaptainKickass]

So Captain.... When do you believe that Aaron Rodgers is back at the earliest?

At the risk of being redundant...

Nine Weeks.

[red]

maybe the packers training staff thinks that all these scans are giving off gamma rays and that those said gamma rays will give a-rod magical healing powers

worked for this guy

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS82xxF2RC033ekg5h7TPgbb1Y651bfL ZCsugibfFaeUpB5pqf6

[red]

i guess since the minimum amount of time to heal is 6 weeks and he's been bouncing all around and practicing and not doing the one thing bones require to heal (DOING NOTHING AND TAKING IT EASY) todays news shouldn't come as a shock to anyone

and cap'n is right. c-wood had the same injury, the same doctor kept him out 9 weeks even though wood was throwing a shit fit to get back on the field. thats probably what we're looking at here

[woodbuck27]

i guess since the minimum amount of time to heal is 6 weeks and he's been bouncing all around and practicing and not doing the one thing bones require to heal (DOING NOTHING AND TAKING IT EASY) todays news shouldn't come as a shock to anyone

and cap'n is right. c-wood had the same injury, the same doctor kept him out 9 weeks even though wood was throwing a shit fit to get back on the field. thats probably what we're looking at here

Boy ohh boy............................................... .......................... (blank) ................ there I got it out.

[woodbuck27]

At the risk of being redundant...

Nine Weeks.

If he's not back this week and The Steelers do manage to blow us up Sunday ... He's not coming back till after next off season.

[woodbuck27]

No, that looks like the guy that would receive dick pics.

It's a bad ... bad ... very bad world we live in.

[MadtownPacker]

If he's not back this week and The Steelers do manage to blow us up Sunday ... He's not coming back till after next off season.
But what if the bears and lions lose also?

[PA Pack Fan]

I don't know why any of you fuckers or the media choose to believe that there is any chance of Rodgers playing before then. The precedent on collarbone timetables by this medical staff (McKenzie) was set a long ass time ago.

That precedent is 9 weeks.
So Dr. Kickass.............they were identical injuries then?

[denverYooper]

Rodgers will play on Sunday.

[run pMc]

IIRC Woodson's was a more serious break. Frankly, it's easier finding a replacement at CB than it is at QB. Woodson was still a very good CB at that point, but he was on the downward slope of his career. Rodgers is still in his prime and as a Top 5 QB you don't risk prematurely ending his career. I'm frustrated with all the will-he-won't-he, but I don't think it's his decision. Honestly, that GB is still in the hunt for the division after everything that's happened is amazing. When he first got hurt, I thought he'd be back for ATL, and we'd be 7-5 with a chance to run the table and clinch the division. DET has helped us out (Thanksgiving aside). GB wins out, they're in the playoffs.
(This message was brought to you by the Sunnyside GBP Koolaid Drinkers Association)

If Flynn gets the start and -- heaven forbid -- GB loses vs. PIT do they IR Rodgers? This year has felt like a slow sinking ship of attrition with all the injuries. :(

[CaptainKickass]

So Dr. Kickass.............they were identical injuries then?

What a stupid question.

I simply made a logical deduction based on the exact same reported facts and evidence that everyone else has access to. This is in sharp contrast to some of the "hope-fiends" who insist on being strung along like a co-dependent girlfriend with a sandy vagina in an abusive relationship week after week since the injury occurred.

Set your expectations appropriately.

[CaptainKickass]

i guess since the minimum amount of time to heal is 6 weeks and he's been bouncing all around and practicing and not doing the one thing bones require to heal (DOING NOTHING AND TAKING IT EASY) todays news shouldn't come as a shock to anyone

and cap'n is right. c-wood had the same injury, the same doctor kept him out 9 weeks even though wood was throwing a shit fit to get back on the field. thats probably what we're looking at here

I'm not trying to be "right" or one up anyone. I'm just saying that ignoring the precedent is unwise.

[Packman_26]

I'm not trying to be "right" or one up anyone. I'm just saying that ignoring the precedent is unwise.
You are declaring a precedent without having an understanding of all the variables. Do we also have a precedent on broken legs? Sherrod missed about 2 years with a broken leg, does that mean that any of we "fuckers or media" shouldn't choose to believe that there is any chance of Cobb playing before then?
Injuries have different serveries and every person is different. It's foolish to think that knowing they both had broken collarbones paints a clear enough picture to make such statements.
Also since there is no chance that Rodgers comes back even a week before Woodson did, isn't the inverse also true? That would mean that there is no chance of him taking any weeks beyond that. How ridiculous does that sound?

[Cleft Crusty]

Injuries have different serveries

http://www.skillspace.com/DIGITALLOCKER/Assets/View/f2004fc1-4d61-485f-b00f-110dec7e7f1d/0/severus%20snape.jpg

[woodbuck27]

But what if the bears and lions lose also?

Hi Mad:

Very possibly (in the mind of TT and DR. Patrick McKenzie) Aaron Rodgers injury status and value to the team, has nothing at all to do with how the Lions or Bears perform this week Mad.

Actually that ....within any reason seems to be the exact case.

Looking at that negative for both teams ie Bears and Lions losing only eliminates the Lions from post season play.

It will be 48 days since Aaron Rodgers was lost and the game Vs the Steelers this Sunday.

Add 7 days and it will be 55 days a week from Sunday>>> @ Chicago Bears....or 8 weeks (minus 1 day). The number of days doesn't infer that there is any relationship between any time and AR's clearance to return as the Packer starting QB.

That may indeed mean something/may not 'in some specific terms' >>>>to Dr. Patrick McKenzie>>>

>>> Ted Thompson>>>>MM>>> Aaron Rodgers>>>The Packers Team.

As the fan and in final analysis today. . . . it's all a mystery.

Aaron will be back when he's ruled OK to return. That's clearly when Dr. Patrick McKenzie signs off on that and declares that his last diagnosis confirmed to him that AR is fully healed and good to go.

Anything else and niiiiggghht ! NOPE!

[Packman_26]

http://www.skillspace.com/DIGITALLOCKER/Assets/View/f2004fc1-4d61-485f-b00f-110dec7e7f1d/0/severus%20snape.jpg
*severities. I got autocorrected, forgive me.

[CaptainKickass]

You are declaring a precedent without having an understanding of all the variables. Do we also have a precedent on broken legs? Sherrod missed about 2 years with a broken leg, does that mean that any of we "fuckers or media" shouldn't choose to believe that there is any chance of Cobb playing before then?
Injuries have different serveries and every person is different. It's foolish to think that knowing they both had broken collarbones paints a clear enough picture to make such statements.
Also since there is no chance that Rodgers comes back even a week before Woodson did, isn't the inverse also true? That would mean that there is no chance of him taking any weeks beyond that. How ridiculous does that sound?

I declared nothing except to say the Green Bay Packers, McKenzie in particular, handled a "star" player with a similar injury in a certain time frame. It's more than reasonable to apply that same approximate time frame to this situation.

I did not say there is "no chance" he comes back before then so stop reading absolutes into my posts and reacting with your feelings. Just set your expectations according to past precedent. Some of "you fuckers and the media" have been acting like Rodgers could come back as early as 2 weeks after his injury.

Want more? How about next time you spend 2 minutes gathering some facts?

Quick web searches provide the following:


Tony Romo had a broken collarbone in 2010 and missed 10 games


other NFL players have missed anywhere from 6-12 weeks from broken collarbone injuries

Here's an actual NFL study on the matter.

http://ajs.sagepub.com/content/38/10/2092.abstract


Results: Nineteen players sustained a middle-third clavicle fracture over the 5-year period. Six fractures were nondisplaced or minimally displaced. All 6 healed at an average time of 7.3 weeks. Thirteen fractures were 100% displaced. Six of the 13 underwent acute surgical fixation that resulted in fracture healing without complication at an average of 8.8 weeks. The remaining 7 players with a completely displaced fracture were initially treated nonoperatively. Three of these 7 healed clinically without sequela at an average of 13.3 weeks after injury; however, 4 players sustained a refracture within 1 year of the initial injury.

Conclusion: Over the past 5 years, nearly 50% of NFL players with a completely displaced middle-third clavicle fracture were treated successfully with acute surgical fixation without sequela and healed at an average of 8.8 weeks. Three of these players were able to return to play during the same season.

^ that's 3 out of 19 players.

:butt:

[mission]

That's not good, CK.

[MadtownPacker]

Dammit I like the arguing but I lost track of who was saying what since you "fuckers and the media" made so many long post. Bunch of Woodbuck wannabes.

[CaptainKickass]

That's not good, CK.

Facts are neither good or bad. But I would agree that it doesn't bode well for Rodgers return. Very low on the "bode" scale.



Dammit I like the arguing but I lost track of who was saying what since you "fuckers and the media" made so many long post. Bunch of Woodbuck wannabes.


I'll try to simplify it for you Mad.

1.) "Some of you fuckers and the media" are acting on feelings and being herded by emotion fueled by the media week after week.

2.) I'm saying, temper expectations with logic, facts and evidence.

There's really no argument. But, because I kick ass, I can leave you with some insight on what an argument may or may not be:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

[woodbuck27]

Hi Mad:

Very possibly (in the mind of TT and DR. Patrick McKenzie) Aaron Rodgers injury status and value to the team, has nothing at all to do with how the Lions or Bears perform this week Mad.

Actually that ....within any reason seems to be the exact case.

Looking at that negative for both teams ie Bears and Lions losing only eliminates the Lions from post season play.

It will be 48 days since Aaron Rodgers was lost and the game Vs the Steelers this Sunday.

Add 7 days and it will be 55 days a week from Sunday>>> @ Chicago Bears....or 8 weeks (minus 1 day). The number of days doesn't infer that there is any relationship between any time and AR's clearance to return as the Packer starting QB.

That may indeed mean something/may not 'in some specific terms' >>>>to Dr. Patrick McKenzie>>>

>>> Ted Thompson>>>>MM>>> Aaron Rodgers>>>The Packers Team.

As the fan and in final analysis today. . . . it's all a mystery.

Aaron will be back when he's ruled OK to return. That's clearly when Dr. Patrick McKenzie signs off on that and declares that his last diagnosis confirmed to him that AR is fully healed and good to go.

Anything else and niiiiggghht ! NOPE!

Maybe it's getting close to he's back as I just saw a Presser with MM and he seemed a tad more upbeat and that in terms of the results he's seeing of AR in practise.

It's really what I wrote above and maybe another MM smoke screen....tomorrow we find out the latest.

It's seeming to go now in terms of MM from week to week >>> day to day.

Encouraging? I don't have a clue.

He'll return when DOC McKenzie decides that's OK. . . . End of story.

I'm simply waiting to get past this week and Pittsburgh Steelers>>>The Chicago Bears.

PACKERS !

[red]

I declared nothing except to say the Green Bay Packers, McKenzie in particular, handled a "star" player with a similar injury in a certain time frame. It's more than reasonable to apply that same approximate time frame to this situation.

I did not say there is "no chance" he comes back before then so stop reading absolutes into my posts and reacting with your feelings. Just set your expectations according to past precedent. Some of "you fuckers and the media" have been acting like Rodgers could come back as early as 2 weeks after his injury.

Want more? How about next time you spend 2 minutes gathering some facts?

Quick web searches provide the following:





Here's an actual NFL study on the matter.

http://ajs.sagepub.com/content/38/10/2092.abstract



^ that's 3 out of 19 players.

:butt:

gotta call you out here capn. your conclusion might be wrong

you said 3 or 19 players were able to return in the same season. but the conclusion only talks about the 13 guys that have the "completely displaced middle-third clavicle fracture"

so only 3 out of those 13 guys were able to come back in the same season

it doesn't say how many of the 6 guys with non-displaced breaks (which is what a-rod has, we think) were able to return in the same season. all it says about those six guys is that the average for them is 7.3 weeks

interesting that in the same conclusion from that page, it says that the guys that didn't have surgery and re-fractured the collarbone within a year, ended up missing an average of 1.5 season. even though rodgers does not have a displaced fracture, a re-brake is something that we need to avoid at all costs and is the reason for him being held out until it is completely healed. if he comes back too soon and suffers a re-fracture, then part of next season may be in jeopardy

[red]

Maybe it's getting close to he's back as I just saw a Presser with MM and he seemed a tad more upbeat and that in terms of the results he's seeing of AR in practise.

It's really what I wrote above and maybe another MM smoke screen....tomorrow we find out the latest.

It's seeming to go now in terms of MM from week to week >>> day to day.

Encouraging? I don't have a clue.

He'll return when DOC McKenzie decides that's OK. . . . End of story.

I'm simply waiting to get past this week and Pittsburgh Steelers>>>The Chicago Bears.

PACKERS !

it doesn't matter one bit how a-rod looks in practice or how he "feel". all that matters is the x-ray at this point.

and IMO he shouldn't even be practicing. if you have something that is trying to mend and you keep moving the thing around, you're only going to prolong the healing time

[CaptainKickass]

gotta call you out here capn. your conclusion might be wrong


My math may be off but my point stands. And that point is to just temper all the fucking bullshit hysteria and rabble rousing with some facts. At least you bothered to read it Red.

Believe me, I want Rodgers back as much as anyone.

[hoosier]

I declared nothing except to say the Green Bay Packers, McKenzie in particular, handled a "star" player with a similar injury in a certain time frame. It's more than reasonable to apply that same approximate time frame to this situation.

I did not say there is "no chance" he comes back before then so stop reading absolutes into my posts and reacting with your feelings. Just set your expectations according to past precedent. Some of "you fuckers and the media" have been acting like Rodgers could come back as early as 2 weeks after his injury.

Want more? How about next time you spend 2 minutes gathering some facts?

Quick web searches provide the following:





Here's an actual NFL study on the matter.

http://ajs.sagepub.com/content/38/10/2092.abstract



^ that's 3 out of 19 players.

:butt:

I think the prognosis for distal fracture is different from middle third. Are you assuming Rodgers's injury happened in the middle third?

[Packman_26]

I did not say there is "no chance" he comes back before then so stop reading absolutes into my posts and reacting with your feelings.

I don't know why any of you fuckers or the media choose to believe that there is any chance of Rodgers playing before then.
If you overstated, cool. No harm, no foul but lets not pretend here. Don't paint me as someone that was reading too much into your original post.
And your study says that non-displaced clavicle breaks healed in an average time of 7.3 weeks, doesn't that lend itself more to the argument than it can be less than 9 weeks than that it'll take precisely 9 weeks?

[Freak Out]

My math may be off but my point stands. And that point is to just temper all the fucking bullshit hysteria and rabble rousing with some facts. At least you bothered to read it Red.

Believe me, I want Rodgers back as much as anyone.

Sorry...this is PackerRats.

[woodbuck27]

it doesn't matter one bit how a-rod looks in practice or how he "feel". all that matters is the x-ray at this point.

and IMO he shouldn't even be practicing. if you have something that is trying to mend and you keep moving the thing around, you're only going to prolong the healing time


Get that into the Packer Lambeau Field Suggestion Box.

ATTENTION TT/MM !!

Maybe it'll land in the:

" Geeee I Wasn't Aware Of That " file.

[woodbuck27]

Sorry...this is PackerRats.



Sorry Captain....This ..........IS ...................................Packerrats.

[sharpe1027]

I declared nothing except to say the Green Bay Packers, McKenzie in particular, handled a "star" player with a similar injury in a certain time frame. It's more than reasonable to apply that same approximate time frame to this situation.

I did not say there is "no chance" he comes back before then so stop reading absolutes into my posts and reacting with your feelings. Just set your expectations according to past precedent. Some of "you fuckers and the media" have been acting like Rodgers could come back as early as 2 weeks after his injury.

Want more? How about next time you spend 2 minutes gathering some facts?

Quick web searches provide the following:





Here's an actual NFL study on the matter.

http://ajs.sagepub.com/content/38/10/2092.abstract



^ that's 3 out of 19 players.

:butt:

If the average was 7.3 weeks, it seems possible that some healed in 6 weeks. Two at 6 weeks and 4 at 8 weeks is about right. Expecting Rodgers back this week doesn't seem like much of a stretch from your research.

[CaptainKickass]

If you overstated, cool. No harm, no foul but lets not pretend here. Don't paint me as someone that was reading too much into your original post.
And your study says that non-displaced clavicle breaks healed in an average time of 7.3 weeks, doesn't that lend itself more to the argument than it can be less than 9 weeks than that it'll take precisely 9 weeks?

That's right. I'm painting YOU specifically. And, it's MY study. I did the work myself.

The 9 week period is based on Woodson and McKenzie. It is a fact that Woodson was out for 9 weeks, trying to get back in, but held out by McKenzie.



Sorry...this is PackerRats.

Holy fucking shit Batman!!! I thought I was trapped in a glass case of emotion this whole time!!


I think the prognosis for distal fracture is different from middle third. Are you assuming Rodgers's injury happened in the middle third?

I'm assuming 2 things. Jack and Shit. Aren't you assuming what you "think" is correct in that statement?



Sorry Captain....This ..........IS ...................................Packerrats.

Well, I guess you really told me Woody! I thought I was at ParkerRats or maybe even PorkerRats for a little while.

And a huge round of applause to you all for ganging up on a Captain and providing zero facts or evidence, much less any material to claim or support a counter-argument.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

Well fucking done everybody!!


.

[woodbuck27]

That's right. I'm painting YOU specifically. And, it's MY study. I did the work myself.

The 9 week period is based on Woodson and McKenzie. It is a fact that Woodson was out for 9 weeks, trying to get back in, but held out by McKenzie.




Holy fucking shit Batman!!! I thought I was trapped in a glass case of emotion this whole time!!



I'm assuming 2 things. Jack and Shit. Aren't you assuming what you "think" is correct in that statement?




Well, I guess you really told me Woody! I thought I was at ParkerRats or maybe even PorkerRats for a little while.

And a huge round of applause to you all for ganging up on a Captain and providing zero facts or evidence, much less any material to claim or support a counter-argument.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

Well fucking done everybody!!


.

No Captain...You did very good.

You had a hypothesis and strapped it to Packerrats and the 'bucking horse' that is Packerrats tried to toss it.

Every post on this thread served all that contributed to your thread in terms of added learning.

Are we really any further along in examing the Aaron Rodgers absence from the field of play?

I believe the answer to that lies in simply being patient...waiting until he toss's his next TD.

GO PACK GO !

[red]

If the average was 7.3 weeks, it seems possible that some healed in 6 weeks. Two at 6 weeks and 4 at 8 weeks is about right. Expecting Rodgers back this week doesn't seem like much of a stretch from your research.expecting him back anytime now if fine

its fucking nuts that people have been expecting him to be back any time now for the last 5 weeks

[woodbuck27]

expecting him back anytime now if fine

its fucking nuts that people have been expecting him to be back any time now for the last 5 weeks

Yes but 'THE PACKER LOYAL' are listening to Mike McCarthy and his ;

It's week to week pronouncements. That's all they will go on or believe.

Isn't there something to be said for innocence...naivety?

[RashanGary]

I think he'll play.


1. He's younger than Woodson, and should heal faster
2. He plays quarterback, not safety
3. He's a more valuable player
4. We have a 2 game season, and we're guaranteed a playoff home game with 2 wins
5. He's going to push really hard to play and MM is a risk taker


I have hope. I just have a feeling.

[woodbuck27]

I think he'll play.


1. He's younger than Woodson, and should heal faster
2. He plays quarterback, not safety
3. He's a more valuable player
4. We have a 2 game season, and we're guaranteed a playoff home game with 2 wins
5. He's going to push really hard to play and MM is a risk taker


I have hope. I just have a feeling.

All very good but in his assessment of the final word Dr. Patrick McKenzie will professionally ignore all that JH.

He'll want the bone to be 100% ... A-OK before Aaron Rodgers can play.

[Packman_26]

That's right. I'm painting YOU specifically. And, it's MY study. I did the work myself.
Ok then. What a dickhead I am for thinking that when you quote me and say to stop reading absolutes in your posts and reacting with my feelings that you are actually talking about me. And you brought up the study so yes I called it your study. That's what you grab onto, if I said your study rather than the study?

And a huge round of applause to you all for ganging up on a Captain and providing zero facts or evidence, much less any material to claim or support a counter-argument.
What material is it that should be supplied? My entire premise is that we don't know enough about the injury to determine if he would miss 3 weeks (like Dukes QB did this year), 9 weeks like Woodson or something entirely different. You then supplied a study that rather clearly states that the length of time a player misses has a direct correlation with the severity and location of the injury. That's been the point I've been maintaining the whole time.
The fact of the matter is you said you don't know how anyone could think he could be back any sooner than 9 weeks based on Woodsons injury when only the Packers know if Rodgers injury is like injury Woodson had. I can't speak for anyone else that "ganging up" on you, but I just don't agree with a statement like that based on the limited information we have. Rodgers may very well miss 9 weeks just like Woodson did, but there is no way to know it.

[CaptainKickass]

Ok then. What a dickhead I am

Awww. :oops: It's OK sugarbumps. Apology accepted.


Rodgers may very well miss 9 weeks just like Woodson did, but there is no way to know it.

Again, the last 5ish weeks of "is he coming back today?" have been a wee bit over the top. I never said "I know" when he's coming back. I only said that this is what the expectation should be based on evidence and historical data. Furthermore, I said it the day after the injury.

Of course there's no way to "know" ya big doofus.



Or IS there?





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWyHiV3l3MA



Also - is it me or does Miss Cleo sound a "wee bit Scottish"?

[hoosier]

Want more? How about next time you spend 2 minutes gathering some facts?

Quick web searches provide the following:

Here's an actual NFL study on the matter.

http://ajs.sagepub.com/content/38/10/2092.abstract

that's 3 out of 19 players.


I think the prognosis for distal fracture is different from middle third. Are you assuming Rodgers's injury happened in the middle third?


I'm assuming 2 things. Jack and Shit. Aren't you assuming what you "think" is correct in that statement?

I read somewhere that Rodgers's fracture was thought to be on the distal side, but I can't find it now. I'm not assuming anything except that the recovery time can vary quite a bit depending on where the fracture is located. Your earlier post, however, did imply that you thought Rodgers's recovery time could be mapped onto the spectrum described in the study.

[Pugger]

does this look like a guy who would text dick pics?

http://www.totalpackers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/aaron-rodgers-movember-1.jpg

Gawd, that's a terrible picture of our fabulous QB. :-P

[Pugger]

And this statement changes anything how?

Here's another thought: If Rodgers (being the franchise QB he is and all) is more important than Woodson was, wouldn't it stand to reason that Rodgers would be held out longer?

Only if their injuries were similar. Rodgers never had to wear a sling where Woodson did from day one. Aaron has been throwing rockets at practice this week. He may not play on Sunday but by the time we play Chicago it will be 8 weeks and Aaron can finish what he started against the bares 2 months ago.

[George Cumby]

Gawd, that's a terrible picture of our fabulous QB. :-P

The 70's pornstar stache is what really makes me not want to boink him.

[PA Pack Fan]

Only if their injuries were similar. Rodgers never had to wear a sling where Woodson did from day one. Aaron has been throwing rockets at practice this week. He may not play on Sunday but by the time we play Chicago it will be 8 weeks and Aaron can finish what he started against the bares 2 months ago.
STOP MAKING SENSE!!!

sheesh....you fuckers and the media.

[denverYooper]

http://diymusician.cdbaby.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/david-byrne-big-suit.jpg
STOP MAKING SENSE!!!

sheesh....you fuckers and the media.

[Pugger]

STOP MAKING SENSE!!!

sheesh....you fuckers and the media.

:lol: Sorry about that. ;-)

[MadtownPacker]

Man I really hope M3 goes all belichick on our asses and don't say shit until gametime. You "fuckers and media" will kill each other by then. :lol:

[pbmax]

Man I really hope M3 goes all belichick on our asses and don't say shit until gametime. You "fuckers and media" will kill each other by then. :lol:

You should listen to the radio out here. People are at each other's throats with bad information. They don't even need callers because the hosts cannot parse the given information and agree on what is happening. I think McCarthy is trolling them.

[woodbuck27]

OK here comes the latest NEWS any minute now.

What's up with Aaron Rodgers today Mike?

News that we might find out tomorrow or Friday!?....

After all...it's now... day .....to day.... to day.....

Be cautious Mike.

[pbmax]

Twitter fans are now taunting writers with diagnoses they are getting from their friends. Its beautiful as the writers get fed up with being the bad guy and retweet everything.

[woodbuck27]

Man I really hope M3 goes all belichick on our asses and don't say shit until gametime. You "fuckers and media" will kill each other by then. :lol:

Hahahahaha.

Hilarious....We're too good already with Matt Flynn. Let's give the Steelers some chance.

Actually Rodgers and back and rust ...has some weight.

Matt Flynn just led the Packers to another RECORD with him under Center.

History = Matt Flynn.

We're very SAFE with Matt Flynn.

[run pMc]

Flynn takes the snaps in Thu practice.
I think Rodgers is out.

[woodbuck27]

Mike McCarthy says >>>tomorrow (Friday 20 Dec. 2013).

Tune in again and see if Aaron Rodgers is cleared.

It's day to day to day to day>>>

NO more new news on AR...he's still not medically cleared to play. He's limited at practise yet looks very good in practise.

Now this:

So what if the DOC signs that he's medically ready to go. Does that automatically mean that MM will start Aaron Rodgers?

NO !

It's just this. When we see AR lead our team's offense to another TD or FG>>> 'only then' is he back.


PACKERS !


GO Matt Flynn GO !

[Rutnstrut]

I understand the whole risk/reward thing and not wanting him to get hurt again. But come on, this is football. Even a healthy player can be done for the season in one play, even on a non contact play if you are Sennaca Wallace;) I understand being cautious with Rodgers, but at what point is it being overly cautious.

[MadScientist]

I understand the whole risk/reward thing and not wanting him to get hurt again. But come on, this is football. Even a healthy player can be done for the season in one play, even on a non contact play if you are Sennaca Wallace;) I understand being cautious with Rodgers, but at what point is it being overly cautious.

It is a question of how much greater is the risk of injury and how much more serious would the injury be. For instance if you were TT and the doc said something like this:

"Based on the normal hits Rodgers takes during the game, there is a 25% chance that he will re-crack the bone. Also if lands on his shoulder like he did in the Bears game, he has a 40% chance of a sever break requiring surgery and causing possible nerve damage."

What would your call be? What numbers would you feel are within your comfort zone?

[mraynrand]

It is a question of how much greater is the risk of injury and how much more serious would the injury be. For instance if you were TT and the doc said something like this:

"Based on the normal hits Rodgers takes during the game, there is a 25% chance that he will re-crack the bone. Also if lands on his shoulder like he did in the Bears game, he has a 40% chance of a sever break requiring surgery and causing possible nerve damage."

What would your call be? What numbers would you feel are within your comfort zone?

Well, considering the Packers lose approximately 1.6 players to extended and/or season/career-ending injury every game, it's hard to believe Rodger's chances could be any worse than they already are.

[MadtownPacker]

What would your call be? What numbers would you feel are within your comfort zone?
2 & 0=1 playoff game at home. Those numbers are why it is worth it IMO. I'm starting to agree with Woody though, might be just fine with The Flynn at the helm. Long as Lacy can pound the rock.

[red]

It is a question of how much greater is the risk of injury and how much more serious would the injury be. For instance if you were TT and the doc said something like this:

"Based on the normal hits Rodgers takes during the game, there is a 25% chance that he will re-crack the bone. Also if lands on his shoulder like he did in the Bears game, he has a 40% chance of a sever break requiring surgery and causing possible nerve damage."

What would your call be? What numbers would you feel are within your comfort zone?

what are the chances of any player getting injured on any play?

10, 15, 20?

if the answer is 15 or 20 and rodgers chances of getting reinjured are 25, then let his ass play. and what happens if he doesn't get hurt again and needs surgery. we got 30 weeks or so until training camp. if the player wants to risk it, then let him play. if the player wants to risk his offseason, then let him