Do you want to see Eddie Lacy play Monday?

[Harlan Huckleby]

It's a long season.

[Maxie the Taxi]

No poll?

[Harlan Huckleby]

No poll?
Was there really any doubt?

[ThunderDan]

If the medical staff clears Eddie to play you play him. Also, I will be at the game in my Lacy jersey.

[mraynrand]

I vote yes I want to see him play. Should he play or not is another poll.

[Maxie the Taxi]

You might need to use a Mulligan on that poll for lack of including the catch-all "Other" as the last choice.

For instance, I would like to see Gonzo Harris activated and take 33% of the carries on Monday night. Whoever takes the 67% balance is not a real issue with me, unless Lacy is indeed incapacitated by injury, or at least discomfort which could hamper his performance or become a health issue in subsequent games. Then, Lacy should have 0% carries.

Or we could promote Johnny Crockett from the practice squad and allow him a few carries as well. I'm good with that too.

[pbmax]

...
For instance, I would like to see Gonzo Harris activated and take 33% of the carries on Monday night.

I have to ask: why 33%?

Is that just high enough for a good sample size, or to decrease load on Starks or banged up Lacy? None of the above?

For the poll, Eddie has another stretch of a season where he was limping on a bad wheel. Would like a week off to let this thing heal.

[RashanGary]

Obviously none of us have enough information to know the risks, but I'd lean on the side of caution. It's a long season. A fresh Starks is alright. There's no rush, but in the long run, a healthy Lacy is very important to our SB chances.

[Tony Oday]

If he is healthy then yes if not NO.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I vote yes I want to see him play. Should he play or not is another poll.

OK, coming up

[Harlan Huckleby]

If he is healthy then yes if not NO.

If his ankle is bad enough to be a thing, it's a safe assumption he wont be "healthy" by monday.

Lacy played on bad ankle for a stretch last season. (Or was it year before?) Didn't practice during week. It can be done, but is it smart?

My guess is he plays. That's the way of the NFL.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I have to ask: why 33%?



I was messing with Harlan. Seriously, if Lacy isn't 100%, I wouldn't mind a Starks/Harris running game.

[Bossman641]

Unless he's very healthy, let him rest. Since our medical staff tends to play it cautious, if they clear him then he's good to go.

[Fritz]

Unless he's very healthy, let him rest. Since our medical staff tends to play it cautious, if they clear him then he's good to go.


Sit him. It's an AFC game. Let Starks and Harris do the work.

[Joemailman]

I'm going to the game. I want my money's worth damnit. Play him.

[Patler]

He is a professional athlete. If the medical staff clears him to play, he should play. If his status deteriorates during the game, or if the game allows, they can lessen his workload; but to sit him "just because" doesn't make sense to me. Early season wins are important.

[Fritz]

I'm going to the game. I want my money's worth damnit. Play him.


You know that means if he gets hurt during the game, it's your fault.

And maybe a little of Patler's fault, too.

[Joemailman]

You know that means if he gets hurt during the game, it's your fault.

And maybe a little of Patler's fault, too.

Did I mention I have him on my fantasy team?

[Fritz]

Makes you even more responsible.

Better have his mom call and remind him to not hurt himself.

[pbmax]

Did I mention I have him on my fantasy team?

He should definitely sit now.

#MightHaveConflictOfInterestHere

[King Friday]

Starks is more than capable...and he's a better pass blocker to boot when facing one of the strongest DLs in the NFL.

Lacy will not be at 100% on Monday, and I wouldn't play him unless he was at 100%.

[Joemailman]

Starks is more than capable...and he's a better pass blocker to boot when facing one of the strongest DLs in the NFL.

Lacy will not be at 100% on Monday, and I wouldn't play him unless he was at 100%.

Why? Lots of players play at less than 100%. Should Cobb be sitting out? Adams?

[Harlan Huckleby]

He is a professional athlete. If the medical staff clears him to play, he should play. If his status deteriorates during the game, or if the game allows, they can lessen his workload;

"Status deteriorates" is a nice way of saying the decision failed and the injury got worse.

We see every week in the NFL what the medical staff will clear to play. If a bone is not sticking out, guys play.
Sometimes it makes sense to play injured, sometimes not. A running back with a leg injury - dumb. He may not even be as effective as the backups. The chance of extending the injury is high.
I'd say RB and DB are two positions where playing with less than 100% legs is not smart.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Why? Lots of players play at less than 100%. Should Cobb be sitting out? Adams?

Wide receivers can sometimes function adequately with injuries. I'd say the first week back that Cobb played with his shoulder hanging down was a questionable decision.

[run pMc]

Based on the last time Lacy had an ankle injury, he played on it, it lingered for several games and affected his play. If sitting out this week would heal him up, I'd be in favor of that. Starks/Harris can take over for ONE game. Starks was actually pretty effective vs. Seattle, and Harris is a big body who could be a sledgehammer while spelling Starks for a series or two. In a pinch, they can go with the 4 receivers + Cobb/Montgomery in the backfield set too, although KC will have had a chance to prep for that one.

[King Friday]

Why? Lots of players play at less than 100%. Should Cobb be sitting out? Adams?

A. Most teams do not have the depth that the Packers have, and the dropoff to the backup is significant. I don't see Starks as that much of a downgrade to Lacy, as evidenced in the Seattle game.

B. Just because players are on the field at less than 100% is not evidence that decision was the smartest or most optimal. In this case, we've seen Lacy have difficulty recovering from similar injuries in the past precisely because he didn't take some time off to let the injury fully heal. So maybe the smart move is to let him get closer to fully healed for a change rather than have him continually playing at 80% until the bye week.

C. RBs take far more hits than most other players on the field outside of the linemen, and have a much higher chance of re-aggravating an injury as a result. Cobb sort of sat out in the first week...by not running certain routes. So the comparison to WRs doesn't hold. Lacy doesn't have the option to adjust his game to lower the risk of re-aggravation.

[George Cumby]

"Status deteriorates" is a nice way of saying the decision failed and the injury got worse.

We see every week in the NFL what the medical staff will clear to play. If a bone is not sticking out, guys play.
Sometimes it makes sense to play injured, sometimes not. A running back with a leg injury - dumb. He may not even be as effective as the backups. The chance of extending the injury is high.
I'd say RB and DB are two positions where playing with less than 100% legs is not smart.

Agree 100%. The best predictor of injury is pre-existing injury. A week to recover from a sprain? Yes, he could play and probably effectively, but what effect will the additional trauma have later in the season? Sit him a week, let the inflammation subside and the trauma heal.

[Striker]

Let him rest up.

[KYPack]

I'd say err on the side of caution.

Rest him on Monday and then the short week.

[Pugger]

Just to be on the safe side I hope they have Harris on the active list Monday night.

[mraynrand]

If Stubby is playing for those three games in Jan, he'd let Lacy heal up.

[Patler]

What's so special about Lacy that he should play only if he is 100%? The guards played last year when they could hardly walk during the week. Rodgers played when just as bad. Tramon Williams played two years with a bad wing. The list is long.

[mraynrand]

What's so special about Lacy that he should play only if he is 100%? The guards played last year when they could hardly walk during the week. Rodgers played when just as bad. Tramon Williams played two years with a bad wing. The list is long.

It's not a decision made in a vacuum. Can you win without him? Is he hurt so much that he hurts the team instead of helping? Will he be injured further and for longer? Every player should get that same evaluation, as I'm sure you agree.

In this case, I think all three point towards sitting out, but McCarthy may make different judgments based on what his game plan looks like (does he think that he needs Lacy to smash against that defense).

[Patler]

Most of the decisions are medical, to be made by the medical staff. If they clear him, I see no reason for the head coach to override their decision.
,

[Harlan Huckleby]

What's so special about Lacy that he should play only if he is 100%? The guards played last year when they could hardly walk during the week. Rodgers played when just as bad. Tramon Williams played two years with a bad wing. The list is long.

My rule is that it very difficult for DBs and RBs to play with leg injuries. An RB is dead if he can't change direction and run with power. A DB has to respond to the WRs. Other injuries or other positions, the guys can sometimes function in modified way.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Most of the decisions are medical, to be made by the medical staff. If they clear him, I see no reason for the head coach to override their decision.
,

While he may end up technically cleared to play, I could see MM holding him back for a week if he's not fully satisfied that Lacy is far enough along to play effectively. I'm sure he's also concerned that he doesn't want this to be a lingering issue and could elect to sit him to be sure it's not an issue.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Most of the decisions are medical, to be made by the medical staff.

If a drunk wide receiver puts his hand in a wood chipper - it could happen - the ER could probably cauterize the stump, and the medical staff clear him to play.
The coaching staff might come to a different conclusion about the player's game status.

[NewsBruin]

That Kuhn kid can finally get his chance to break out.

Sit Lacey if we can win this game without him.

[sharpe1027]

That Kuhn kid can finally get his chance to break out.

Sit Lacey if we can win this game without him.

Did he even get a single touch with Lacey out for much of last game? This reminds me of Driver's last year.

[Joemailman]

My rule is that it very difficult for DBs and RBs to play with leg injuries. An RB is dead if he can't change direction and run with power. A DB has to respond to the WRs. Other injuries or other positions, the guys can sometimes function in modified way.

I think people are missing the connection between Lacy being able to do the things a running back must be able to do, and being cleared to play. If Lacy can't change direction and run with power, he won't be cleared to play.

[RashanGary]

I change my mind. Play lacy. It sends a message to the team that we want to win and are willing to do whatever it takes.

[King Friday]

What's so special about Lacy that he should play only if he is 100%? The guards played last year when they could hardly walk during the week. Rodgers played when just as bad. Tramon Williams played two years with a bad wing. The list is long.

The dropoff to the replacement is the key. The dropoff from Lang and Sitton to their backups is ENORMOUS. I'd rather have Sitton in there at 70% than any of our backup guards. The dropoff from Lacy to Starks is minimal. Why play Lacy at 70% when Starks at 100% is in actuality a BETTER option?

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think people are missing the connection between Lacy being able to do the things a running back must be able to do, and being cleared to play. If Lacy can't change direction and run with power, he won't be cleared to play.

No, the medical staff clears a player as safe (enough) to play, and they don't look at requirements of the position. That's the coaches' evaluation.

disclaimer: I think we are both guessing at exactly how things work. But I can't see a doctor doing more than estimating chance of re-injury. We've seen plenty of hobbled NFL wide receivers thrown out there who only can function as decoys.