Green Bay Packers injuries (1 Viewer)

[emge]

Quarterback Aaron Rodgers suffered a concussion, tight ends Jermichael Finley (knee) and Donald Lee (shoulder) were forced out of the game, and sack-specialist Clay Matthews III left the game in the second half with a hamstring injury. Defensive lineman Ryan Pickett left with a sprained ankle; and safety Derrick Martin sprained a knee.

For a team that already lost starting running back Ryan Grant for the season, these losses could further derail the team's Super Bowl destiny.

Brandon Jackson and Kuhn were horrible the last couple weeks, but BJax actually put up decent numbers on on week 5, 10 car, 115 yds, 0 tds, (long 71). He also had 5 rec, 6 tgt, for 5 25 yards.

Considering that Brandon Jackson was cut in many leagues before week 5, I am wondering if Green Bay is going to depend on the run game more, or if the Finley injury will just help the WRs?

 

[thehornet]

none of the above

 

[thehornet]

Quarterback Aaron Rodgers suffered a concussion, tight ends Jermichael Finley (knee) and Donald Lee (shoulder) were forced out of the game, and sack-specialist Clay Matthews III left the game in the second half with a hamstring injury. Defensive lineman Ryan Pickett left with a sprained ankle; and safety Derrick Martin sprained a knee.

For a team that already lost starting running back Ryan Grant for the season, these losses could further derail the team's Super Bowl destiny.

Brandon Jackson and Kuhn were horrible the last couple weeks, but BJax actually put up decent numbers on on week 5, 10 car, 115 yds, 0 tds, (long 71). He also had 5 rec, 6 tgt, for 5 25 yards.

Considering that Brandon Jackson was cut in many leagues before week 5, I am wondering if Green Bay is going to depend on the run game more, or if the Finley injury will just help the WRs?

are you kidding? laughable to consider the SB was their destiny.

 

[nlgb1]

injuries to this extent benefits absolutely noone

 

[K8!]

Quarterback Aaron Rodgers suffered a concussion, tight ends Jermichael Finley (knee) and Donald Lee (shoulder) were forced out of the game, and sack-specialist Clay Matthews III left the game in the second half with a hamstring injury. Defensive lineman Ryan Pickett left with a sprained ankle; and safety Derrick Martin sprained a knee.For a team that already lost starting running back Ryan Grant for the season, these losses could further derail the team's Super Bowl destiny.Brandon Jackson and Kuhn were horrible the last couple weeks, but BJax actually put up decent numbers on on week 5, 10 car, 115 yds, 0 tds, (long 71). He also had 5 rec, 6 tgt, for 5 25 yards.Considering that Brandon Jackson was cut in many leagues before week 5, I am wondering if Green Bay is going to depend on the run game more, or if the Finley injury will just help the WRs?

The Packer's "Super Bowl destiny" is not further derailed. It is off the tracks and in a twisted smoking heap.Kuhn was not horrible the last few weeks. He was actually quite effective in a limited role.James Jones got quite a few of the Finley targets. He gets an uptick unless Rodgers also stays out. As far as the R.B.'s, well yesterday may have brought some minimal hope but it was more likely an aberation, and one less liekly to occur as thae packer passing game becomes less formidible through injury. Right now teams are not trying to concentrate defensively on the Packer running game, but with enough injuries to teh passing game they just might.

 

[TheChairman]

Opposing teams?

 

[munygon2]

If Matt Flynn starts they'll stack the box and force him to throw which means very little room for RB's.

 

[emge]

maybe all these injuries increase the chance that they will trade for an RB... who are the most likely RBs to be traded? Car said they are not interested in trading DeAngelo Williams. Lynch is gone. McGahee?

 

[Jerry Lawler]

Once Rodgers returns, the passing offense will put up numbers. The pre-season story was that GB would line up all of the WR's in the slot on occasion, so all of them should run some routes in the middle of the field. My guess is James Jones will see the field more than before. I'm expecting a little more out of the running game too, as Finley wasn't much of a run blocker. Anybody know whether Quarless is much of run blocker?

 

[JbizzleMan]

Not trading for Marshawn Lynch is looking like an even bigger mistake now.

 

[scott72]

maybe all these injuries increase the chance that they will trade for an RB... who are the most likely RBs to be traded? Car said they are not interested in trading DeAngelo Williams. Lynch is gone. McGahee?

No. It decreases the chance they make a trade. Why use a high pick to fill one hole when there are 5 more than need filling too?

 

[scott72]

Not trading for Marshawn Lynch is looking like an even bigger mistake now.

No it's looking more and more like the right decision. The running game averaged 9 yards a carry yesterday with BJax and Kuhn. Bulaga in for Tauscher at RT made a world of difference blocking wise. Like I said above, makes no sense unloading picks to fill one hole when we have gaping holes everywhere else now due to injury.

 

[⚡DEADHEAD⚡]

Not trading for Marshawn Lynch is looking like an even bigger mistake now.

No it's looking more and more like the right decision. The running game averaged 9 yards a carry yesterday with BJax and Kuhn. Bulaga in for Tauscher at RT made a world of difference blocking wise. Like I said above, makes no sense unloading picks to fill one hole when we have gaping holes everywhere else now due to injury.

This is crazy talk. VERY flawed analysis.

 

[PinkydaPimp]

I am hoping finleys abscence helps jennings.

 

[scott72]

Not trading for Marshawn Lynch is looking like an even bigger mistake now.

No it's looking more and more like the right decision. The running game averaged 9 yards a carry yesterday with BJax and Kuhn. Bulaga in for Tauscher at RT made a world of difference blocking wise. Like I said above, makes no sense unloading picks to fill one hole when we have gaping holes everywhere else now due to injury.

This is crazy talk. VERY flawed analysis.

Flawed? Why because there was a long run in there? So what? The run game doesn't get credit for that? If you take the long run out of there then it IS flawed analysis. Should we take the runs for losses out of there too?

 

[JbizzleMan]

I am hoping finleys abscence helps jennings.

I haven't seen any Packers games. What's his problem? Is he not getting open? If that's the case then I don't see how it could help him. Now they can throw an extra defender over the top without having to worry about Finley.

 

[JbizzleMan]

Not trading for Marshawn Lynch is looking like an even bigger mistake now.

No it's looking more and more like the right decision. The running game averaged 9 yards a carry yesterday with BJax and Kuhn. Bulaga in for Tauscher at RT made a world of difference blocking wise. Like I said above, makes no sense unloading picks to fill one hole when we have gaping holes everywhere else now due to injury.

This is crazy talk. VERY flawed analysis.

Flawed? Why because there was a long run in there? So what? The run game doesn't get credit for that? If you take the long run out of there then it IS flawed analysis. Should we take the runs for losses out of there too?

With the Pack losing their most dangerous receiver for a few weeks they are going to have to rely on the running game even more. Have Jackson and Kuhn proven that they are capable of this?

 

[sho nuff]

Not trading for Marshawn Lynch is looking like an even bigger mistake now.

No it's looking more and more like the right decision. The running game averaged 9 yards a carry yesterday with BJax and Kuhn. Bulaga in for Tauscher at RT made a world of difference blocking wise. Like I said above, makes no sense unloading picks to fill one hole when we have gaping holes everywhere else now due to injury.

This is crazy talk. VERY flawed analysis.

Flawed? Why because there was a long run in there? So what? The run game doesn't get credit for that? If you take the long run out of there then it IS flawed analysis. Should we take the runs for losses out of there too?

Even taking it out, Jackson averaged 4.88 without the long run.

 

[scott72]

Not trading for Marshawn Lynch is looking like an even bigger mistake now.

No it's looking more and more like the right decision. The running game averaged 9 yards a carry yesterday with BJax and Kuhn. Bulaga in for Tauscher at RT made a world of difference blocking wise. Like I said above, makes no sense unloading picks to fill one hole when we have gaping holes everywhere else now due to injury.

This is crazy talk. VERY flawed analysis.

Flawed? Why because there was a long run in there? So what? The run game doesn't get credit for that? If you take the long run out of there then it IS flawed analysis. Should we take the runs for losses out of there too?

With the Pack losing their most dangerous receiver for a few weeks they are going to have to rely on the running game even more. Have Jackson and Kuhn proven that they are capable of this?

We could debate this forever, but I don't think the run issues have been all Jackson or Kuhn. There were immediate positive results after Bulaga replaced Tauscher after just one week. I don't care of we have Lynch or whoever back there, if the line doesn't open things up then it doesn't matter.

 

[The Doctor]

Opposing teams?

that team is riddled with injuries. /start downward spiral

 

[emge]

Not trading for Marshawn Lynch is looking like an even bigger mistake now.

No it's looking more and more like the right decision. The running game averaged 9 yards a carry yesterday with BJax and Kuhn. Bulaga in for Tauscher at RT made a world of difference blocking wise. Like I said above, makes no sense unloading picks to fill one hole when we have gaping holes everywhere else now due to injury.

This is crazy talk. VERY flawed analysis.

Flawed? Why because there was a long run in there? So what? The run game doesn't get credit for that? If you take the long run out of there then it IS flawed analysis. Should we take the runs for losses out of there too?

I only runs that are between 2-5 yrds should be considered when analyzing YPC

 

[scott72]

Not trading for Marshawn Lynch is looking like an even bigger mistake now.

No it's looking more and more like the right decision. The running game averaged 9 yards a carry yesterday with BJax and Kuhn. Bulaga in for Tauscher at RT made a world of difference blocking wise. Like I said above, makes no sense unloading picks to fill one hole when we have gaping holes everywhere else now due to injury.

This is crazy talk. VERY flawed analysis.

Flawed? Why because there was a long run in there? So what? The run game doesn't get credit for that? If you take the long run out of there then it IS flawed analysis. Should we take the runs for losses out of there too?

I only runs that are between 2-5 yrds should be considered when analyzing YPC

I can't wait to hear how you analyze a passing game..Only passes under 10 yards count?

 

[Ksquared]

I can't wait for you to remove the green and gold tinted glasses. GB RBs only ran the ball 13 times while having a lead for the vast majority of the game which went into OT. It is great they had a high average per rush, but obviously the running game is not strong enough to be more than just an after thought (which is why GB will probably have a high average per rush for the season). The defenses are obviously not worried about the GB running game and will give up a long run here or there to allow them to focus on the passing game.

 

[⚡DEADHEAD⚡]

Not trading for Marshawn Lynch is looking like an even bigger mistake now.

No it's looking more and more like the right decision. The running game averaged 9 yards a carry yesterday with BJax and Kuhn. Bulaga in for Tauscher at RT made a world of difference blocking wise. Like I said above, makes no sense unloading picks to fill one hole when we have gaping holes everywhere else now due to injury.

This is crazy talk. VERY flawed analysis.

Flawed? Why because there was a long run in there? So what? The run game doesn't get credit for that? If you take the long run out of there then it IS flawed analysis. Should we take the runs for losses out of there too?

I consider it an outlier and not indicative of the Packers ability to run the ball whatsover. Previous long was less than 20 yards, I think. So as an analyst, I would not consider the running game on track at all. The opposite, in fact, given the injuries.

 

[sho nuff]

I can't wait for you to remove the green and gold tinted glasses. GB RBs only ran the ball 13 times while having a lead for the vast majority of the game which went into OT. It is great they had a high average per rush, but obviously the running game is not strong enough to be more than just an after thought (which is why GB will probably have a high average per rush for the season). The defenses are obviously not worried about the GB running game and will give up a long run here or there to allow them to focus on the passing game.

That is McCarthy's issue.Even with the running game working, he gets away from it.Its not just about the one long run.

 

[packersfan]

Not trading for Marshawn Lynch is looking like an even bigger mistake now.

No question. If Rodgers misses you'd like to be able to lean on the running game with a proven lead back. That's something that will be extremely difficult (if not impossible) to do now. As far as beneficiaries, the running game is what it is. Jackson looked good yesterday but I would be surprised if he had a game like that anytime soon considering how significantly better it was than his first three as a starter. I agree that game could be viewed as an outlier. Remove that one and the Bears' game and the truth about Jackson is likely to be found when looking at the Eagles, Bills and Lions games. It's difficult to believe the running game will be improved without Rodgers. Flynn is untested but defenses will likely load up to stop the run and see if he can beat them with his arm. So an already highly suspect running game has more going against it if Rodgers is out. From the passing game perspective, the immediate beneficiaries in my opinion are Quarless and James Jones. Quarless does have a similar skill set to Finley but if people remember it took Finley quite awhile to break through (although much of that could be due to the fact he isn't the brightest bulb in the lamp). In any event, more playing time means more potential opportunities so Finley owners in larger leagues may want to look his direction if they don't have a decent TE2 to replace him. I think Jones' value shoots up as well because the Packers will likely lean more on their multi-receiver sets to compensate for Finley's absence. Driver and Jones both run a lot of intermediate routes and those should be easier for Flynn to complete so if you normally start Driver as a WR3 I'd likely keep using him in that role. Jones is looking like a WR4 with some upside. Jennings is the toughest one to feel comfortable about in my opinion. I don't think the Packers have been using him properly with Rodgers (too many deep routes and not using him enough on slants and zone breaker routes) and until we see if Flynn can perform adequately or better as a starter, I'm not sure I'd start Jennings if Rodgers is out. Of course, considering he hasn't topped three receptions or 40 yards since Week 1 some folks might have been benching him anyway despite his three TD receptions.Just my two cents but overall it's tough to feel good about the offense right now for the Packers even if Rodgers doesn't miss any time. The passing game really was tied to Finley in a lot of ways (not sure that was smart) and with no running game to fall back on I'm not sure the offense can be dependent entirely on the passing game to survive. A loss to a Bears' team that looked like complete garbage one week later, a close call against the Lions and the loss to Redskins would certainly provide enough evidence to believe that it cannot.

 

[JamesTheScot]

injuries to this extent benefits absolutely noone

This.Too many injuries means too many replacments who haven't had the reps to gel with their peers. I'd look for the O as a whole to take a step back. The GB o-line can't reliably open holes for the RB's when everyone and their mother is expecting them to pass. A determination to run the ball now would only means more carries for a lower ypc.It might mean a few more forced throws to Jennings if Finley isn't there but that's about it. I don't know if Jennings can outmuscle or outjump DB's for contested balls well enough to do anything with those kinds of targets.

 

[JamesTheScot]

Not trading for Marshawn Lynch is looking like an even bigger mistake now.

No question. If Rodgers misses you'd like to be able to lean on the running game with a proven lead back. That's something that will be extremely difficult (if not impossible) to do now. As far as beneficiaries, the running game is what it is. Jackson looked good yesterday but I would be surprised if he had a game like that anytime soon considering how significantly better it was than his first three as a starter. I agree that game could be viewed as an outlier. Remove that one and the Bears' game and the truth about Jackson is likely to be found when looking at the Eagles, Bills and Lions games. It's difficult to believe the running game will be improved without Rodgers. Flynn is untested but defenses will likely load up to stop the run and see if he can beat them with his arm. So an already highly suspect running game has more going against it if Rodgers is out.

From the passing game perspective, the immediate beneficiaries in my opinion are Quarless and James Jones. Quarless does have a similar skill set to Finley but if people remember it took Finley quite awhile to break through (although much of that could be due to the fact he isn't the brightest bulb in the lamp). In any event, more playing time means more potential opportunities so Finley owners in larger leagues may want to look his direction if they don't have a decent TE2 to replace him. I think Jones' value shoots up as well because the Packers will likely lean more on their multi-receiver sets to compensate for Finley's absence. Driver and Jones both run a lot of intermediate routes and those should be easier for Flynn to complete so if you normally start Driver as a WR3 I'd likely keep using him in that role. Jones is looking like a WR4 with some upside.

Jennings is the toughest one to feel comfortable about in my opinion. I don't think the Packers have been using him properly with Rodgers (too many deep routes and not using him enough on slants and zone breaker routes) and until we see if Flynn can perform adequately or better as a starter, I'm not sure I'd start Jennings if Rodgers is out. Of course, considering he hasn't topped three receptions or 40 yards since Week 1 some folks might have been benching him anyway despite his three TD receptions.

Just my two cents but overall it's tough to feel good about the offense right now for the Packers even if Rodgers doesn't miss any time. The passing game really was tied to Finley in a lot of ways (not sure that was smart) and with no running game to fall back on I'm not sure the offense can be dependent entirely on the passing game to survive. A loss to a Bears' team that looked like complete garbage one week later, a close call against the Lions and the loss to Redskins would certainly provide enough evidence to believe that it cannot.

Agree with most of the post but not sure I agree with the highlighted part. Why load up to stop the run? It's not like Flynn has something to prove but Jackson doesn't. The GB running game isn't scaring anyone whether it's Rodgers or Flynn under center. It's not like any DC out there thinks he dodged a bullet when Rodgers passes instead of handing off to Jackson/Kuhn.I think most DC's see GB as a team built to pass and will still expect them to do so. If anything, you may see D's play more traditional down and distance football if it looks like GB is going to go with a more balanced attack. But you aren't going to see much 8 in the box until GB shows they can run over you with 7 in the box...and so far GB hasn't shown they can do that.

You're right about Jennings, though. He's a non-starter for me after this week. I've got TE's on my bench who are outscoring him. No mas.

 

[packersfan]

Not trading for Marshawn Lynch is looking like an even bigger mistake now.

No question. If Rodgers misses you'd like to be able to lean on the running game with a proven lead back. That's something that will be extremely difficult (if not impossible) to do now. As far as beneficiaries, the running game is what it is. Jackson looked good yesterday but I would be surprised if he had a game like that anytime soon considering how significantly better it was than his first three as a starter. I agree that game could be viewed as an outlier. Remove that one and the Bears' game and the truth about Jackson is likely to be found when looking at the Eagles, Bills and Lions games. It's difficult to believe the running game will be improved without Rodgers. Flynn is untested but defenses will likely load up to stop the run and see if he can beat them with his arm. So an already highly suspect running game has more going against it if Rodgers is out.

From the passing game perspective, the immediate beneficiaries in my opinion are Quarless and James Jones. Quarless does have a similar skill set to Finley but if people remember it took Finley quite awhile to break through (although much of that could be due to the fact he isn't the brightest bulb in the lamp). In any event, more playing time means more potential opportunities so Finley owners in larger leagues may want to look his direction if they don't have a decent TE2 to replace him. I think Jones' value shoots up as well because the Packers will likely lean more on their multi-receiver sets to compensate for Finley's absence. Driver and Jones both run a lot of intermediate routes and those should be easier for Flynn to complete so if you normally start Driver as a WR3 I'd likely keep using him in that role. Jones is looking like a WR4 with some upside.

Jennings is the toughest one to feel comfortable about in my opinion. I don't think the Packers have been using him properly with Rodgers (too many deep routes and not using him enough on slants and zone breaker routes) and until we see if Flynn can perform adequately or better as a starter, I'm not sure I'd start Jennings if Rodgers is out. Of course, considering he hasn't topped three receptions or 40 yards since Week 1 some folks might have been benching him anyway despite his three TD receptions.

Just my two cents but overall it's tough to feel good about the offense right now for the Packers even if Rodgers doesn't miss any time. The passing game really was tied to Finley in a lot of ways (not sure that was smart) and with no running game to fall back on I'm not sure the offense can be dependent entirely on the passing game to survive. A loss to a Bears' team that looked like complete garbage one week later, a close call against the Lions and the loss to Redskins would certainly provide enough evidence to believe that it cannot.

Agree with most of the post but not sure I agree with the highlighted part. Why load up to stop the run?

Because most defenses play run first and I think with an untested QB you want to put even more pressure on him to be the guy who has to make big plays. If Flynn shows he can do it then you can back off the run. But my guess is most defensive coordinators would like to put him in as many second- and third-and-long situations as possible so they can see what he's made of.

 

[JamesTheScot]

I am hoping finleys abscence helps jennings.

I haven't seen any Packers games. What's his problem? Is he not getting open? If that's the case then I don't see how it could help him. Now they can throw an extra defender over the top without having to worry about Finley.

There's an article floating around that states that Jennings has been so quiet because every opponent is running a Tampa-2 against GB to slow down the passing game.It makes sense on one level because the Tampa-2 does tend to keep everything in front of the S's. So you tend to see more success with the short-intermediate routes than the deep sideline stuff.But a TE should be able to exploit the Tampa-2 and roam the middle of the field. Finley has, but perhaps not as much as you'd expect him to given his hype.Think of it this way. GB has been in close games against pretty pedestrian teams even with Finley exploiting the middle. So he obviously isn't doing it so well that DC's must change coverage to stop him. In other words, Finley isn't hurting them enough to pull coverage off of Jennings.It's only week 5, but Finley is going to be out at least 3 weeks. I think Jennings is done as a top 12 WR. Rodgers doesn't have to force throws to him and is smart enough to check on down past him. What was Jennings doing last year when Finley wasn't tearing it up? Dissappointing his fantasy owners is what.

 

[JamesTheScot]

Not trading for Marshawn Lynch is looking like an even bigger mistake now.

No question. If Rodgers misses you'd like to be able to lean on the running game with a proven lead back. That's something that will be extremely difficult (if not impossible) to do now. As far as beneficiaries, the running game is what it is. Jackson looked good yesterday but I would be surprised if he had a game like that anytime soon considering how significantly better it was than his first three as a starter. I agree that game could be viewed as an outlier. Remove that one and the Bears' game and the truth about Jackson is likely to be found when looking at the Eagles, Bills and Lions games. It's difficult to believe the running game will be improved without Rodgers. Flynn is untested but defenses will likely load up to stop the run and see if he can beat them with his arm. So an already highly suspect running game has more going against it if Rodgers is out.

From the passing game perspective, the immediate beneficiaries in my opinion are Quarless and James Jones. Quarless does have a similar skill set to Finley but if people remember it took Finley quite awhile to break through (although much of that could be due to the fact he isn't the brightest bulb in the lamp). In any event, more playing time means more potential opportunities so Finley owners in larger leagues may want to look his direction if they don't have a decent TE2 to replace him. I think Jones' value shoots up as well because the Packers will likely lean more on their multi-receiver sets to compensate for Finley's absence. Driver and Jones both run a lot of intermediate routes and those should be easier for Flynn to complete so if you normally start Driver as a WR3 I'd likely keep using him in that role. Jones is looking like a WR4 with some upside.

Jennings is the toughest one to feel comfortable about in my opinion. I don't think the Packers have been using him properly with Rodgers (too many deep routes and not using him enough on slants and zone breaker routes) and until we see if Flynn can perform adequately or better as a starter, I'm not sure I'd start Jennings if Rodgers is out. Of course, considering he hasn't topped three receptions or 40 yards since Week 1 some folks might have been benching him anyway despite his three TD receptions.

Just my two cents but overall it's tough to feel good about the offense right now for the Packers even if Rodgers doesn't miss any time. The passing game really was tied to Finley in a lot of ways (not sure that was smart) and with no running game to fall back on I'm not sure the offense can be dependent entirely on the passing game to survive. A loss to a Bears' team that looked like complete garbage one week later, a close call against the Lions and the loss to Redskins would certainly provide enough evidence to believe that it cannot.

Agree with most of the post but not sure I agree with the highlighted part. Why load up to stop the run?

Because most defenses play run first and I think with an untested QB you want to put even more pressure on him to be the guy who has to make big plays. If Flynn shows he can do it then you can back off the run. But my guess is most defensive coordinators would like to put him in as many second- and third-and-long situations as possible so they can see what he's made of.

I don't think DC's play the run first anymore unless it's a team that runs the ball well - which GB isn't. You see a lot more nickel than you used to because of the expansion of the passing game.The GB running game has been pretty unspectacular when D's have been "loaded up" to stop the pass. So there's no need to create a weakness in the pass D (for Flynn to exploit) to bolster a run D that doesn't need bolstering.

By loading up to stop the run I think 8 in the box. Maybe by loading up to stop the run you mean not running nickle against them on 1st and 10?

 

[packersfan]

I still think that any team that faces Flynn is going to want to put as much pressure on him as possible. That means putting him in second- and third-and-long situations to see what he can do. The best way to do that is to shut down the run. That's what I expect to see from the Dolphins if Flynn starts next Sunday.

 

[GManiac]

After reports came out that Jennings was upset, and that GB wants to get Jennings the ball more in the coming weeks as they havnt been able to get him involved, I have more confidence in GJ than prior. At least its being acknowledged. I think GB will correct whatever is going on with their passing game and Jennings and he will come on strong in the 2nd half. Good buy low. Rodgers being out for a game or two only opens the door to getting Jennings at a better value for the next week or 2.

 

[basher]

Not trading for Marshawn Lynch is looking like an even bigger mistake now.

Not really ... when you are missing this many starters (what 9 from last seasons defense and 2 key members of the offense) a running back wouldn't really help that much. This amount of injuries derails a season without a doubt.

 

[JamesTheScot]

My problem with that is that the report came out before the Washington game and before Finley got hurt. And Jennings still again only has 2 catches.

Jennings isn't getting the catches because Rodgers has better options. It isn't because Rodgers is just choosing to throw to other guys out of some personal preference.

Until the coaching staff sees springing Jennings for more catches as a means of winning, I don't expect to see much change coming.