Do you want to see Eddie Lacy play Monday?

[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.