What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

**** Official Aaron Rodgers injury thread ***** (2 Viewers)

Who has long criticized them for being conservative or too conservative?

Which one of the guys they released or kept out for medical reasons went on to do anything? Terrence Murphy? Nick Collins?

Please tell me???

And you say gather all the facts...yet, I don't believe you, or any of us have all the facts and the Packers do.

To claim you were just insulted by "internet punks" is funny too.

I think the Packers have communicated their decision clearly. They sat Rodgers because they feel it is best for their football team.

Its not a corporation...its an NFL franchise.

 
The only way Rodgers can re-injure himself or prolong his recovery is by getting hit hard or landing hard.

Practicing, running, throwing, or even lifting weights will not proling his recovery, in fact they will help speed up the recovery by stimulating bone growth.

If he is still sore it more than likely means the bone is not fully healed. His muscles should not have atrophied enough (or at all) to cause this since he was never imobilized, nor should he have been.

Some of you want exact answers from the Packers when there isn't any. Unfortunately, the medical world can only give approximations as to how long it takes for a bone to 100% heal. Maybe 150 years from now they will predict it within a couple days based on newly discovered lab finding they use as better predicting measures, but as of right now, sorry fellas, that doesn't exist.

And of course, he will play when he is cleared, as in the bone is 100% healed. Until then, not playing.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm a Packers fan and I got yelled at .... YELLED AT ... by my wife for saying if Rodgers was at 80-90% he should play week 15. I said that because this is an important playoff game, and, you know, in life you have to weigh the risks versus rewards. Yeah there are risks but there are also rewards.

She called me incredibly stupid for thinking such things. Apparently we are at the point in the NFL where Rodgers has to be 100% before starting a game. I'm usually late to understanding such rules, but if those are the rules I guess I'm OK with that.

 
Who has long criticized them for being conservative or too conservative?

Which one of the guys they released or kept out for medical reasons went on to do anything? Terrence Murphy? Nick Collins?

Please tell me???

And you say gather all the facts...yet, I don't believe you, or any of us have all the facts and the Packers do.

To claim you were just insulted by "internet punks" is funny too.

I think the Packers have communicated their decision clearly. They sat Rodgers because they feel it is best for their football team.

Its not a corporation...its an NFL franchise.
You seem to like funny. So you know what's funny? Your last statement that the NFL is not a corporation. That is one of the most asinine things you've said yet, and that is saying something.

It's also funny that you are still trolling and challenging every fact that I cite. So yet again, l'll feed the troll. Here's a little blurb showing just how conservative Dr. McKenzie is. He is known as the most powerful man in Green Bay. Eat up troll. http://www.packerpedia.com/powerful.html

 
Who has long criticized them for being conservative or too conservative?

Which one of the guys they released or kept out for medical reasons went on to do anything? Terrence Murphy? Nick Collins?

Please tell me???

And you say gather all the facts...yet, I don't believe you, or any of us have all the facts and the Packers do.

To claim you were just insulted by "internet punks" is funny too.

I think the Packers have communicated their decision clearly. They sat Rodgers because they feel it is best for their football team.

Its not a corporation...its an NFL franchise.
:goodposting:

I don't recall seeing a criticism of the Packers' medical team being too conservative. It's widely known among Packer fans that they are conservative when it comes to player safety (see Nick Collins, Jermichael Finley, etc) but it's seldom criticized and rarely wrong. Would like to see the good General back up his claim here with some links.

And I don't believe either that we have all the facts. Just because it's not reported in the media does not equate to the Packers' not gathering all the facts.

 
Who has long criticized them for being conservative or too conservative?

Which one of the guys they released or kept out for medical reasons went on to do anything? Terrence Murphy? Nick Collins?

Please tell me???

And you say gather all the facts...yet, I don't believe you, or any of us have all the facts and the Packers do.

To claim you were just insulted by "internet punks" is funny too.

I think the Packers have communicated their decision clearly. They sat Rodgers because they feel it is best for their football team.

Its not a corporation...its an NFL franchise.
:goodposting:

I don't recall seeing a criticism of the Packers' medical team being too conservative. It's widely known among Packer fans that they are conservative when it comes to player safety (see Nick Collins, Jermichael Finley, etc) but it's seldom criticized and rarely wrong. Would like to see the good General back up his claim here with some links.

And I don't believe either that we have all the facts. Just because it's not reported in the media does not equate to the Packers' not gathering all the facts.
I already provided a link.
 
Last edited:
Exactly. He simply hasn't healed. Doesn't mean he's less of a man or all this petty bull#### people are saying. IT says more about the posters than Rodgers.

 
Who has long criticized them for being conservative or too conservative?

Which one of the guys they released or kept out for medical reasons went on to do anything? Terrence Murphy? Nick Collins?

Please tell me???

And you say gather all the facts...yet, I don't believe you, or any of us have all the facts and the Packers do.

To claim you were just insulted by "internet punks" is funny too.

I think the Packers have communicated their decision clearly. They sat Rodgers because they feel it is best for their football team.

Its not a corporation...its an NFL franchise.
:goodposting:

I don't recall seeing a criticism of the Packers' medical team being too conservative. It's widely known among Packer fans that they are conservative when it comes to player safety (see Nick Collins, Jermichael Finley, etc) but it's seldom criticized and rarely wrong. Would like to see the good General back up his claim here with some links.

And I don't believe either that we have all the facts. Just because it's not reported in the media does not equate to the Packers' not gathering all the facts.
I already provided a link.
You mean the one you provided for Sho nuff about McKenzie being the most powerful person in GB? Or did you provide another link?

From the story about Doc McKenzie:

Not too long after that, Wolf offered McKenzie a job as team's top physician and medical director. He has turned out to be highly regarded across the league, and in 2011 McKenzie won the Jerry “Hawk” Rhea Award as the NFL’s Physician of the Year. In one capacity or another he has worked with all the coaches and executives in recent Packers history, including Ron Wolf, Mike Holmgren, Bob Harlan, Ray Rhodes, Mike Sherman, Mark Murphy, Ted Thompson, and Mike McCarthy. And according to McKenzie, he has never felt compelled to sacrifice his integrity to let a player on the field.
Now who do you think we should choose to believe?

1) McKenzie, highly respected around the league

2) Posters on FBGs threads

 
http://cheeseheadtv.com/blog/in-defense-of-the-packers-training-staff

In Defense of the Packers Training StaffBy Jayme Snowden on Dec 11, 2013

With the Packers injured reserve list once again in the double digits, the team’s franchise player still not medically cleared and key players on both sides of the ball missing substantial time, the Packers medical and training staff find themselves once again in the fan’s cross hairs.

And while some of the criticism is warranted and well meaning, seemingly unnoticed this year was that all four players who started the season on the physically unable to perform list have been placed on the active roster.

When J.C. Tretter injured his leg and ankle last May, his rookie season appeared in jeopardy.

During a non-contact, fumble recovery drill, Tretter suffered a fracture at the lower end of his fibula and tore ligaments in his ankle. Alan Herman, Tretter’s agent, likened the injury to ones suffered by Ryan Grant in 2010 – which landed Grant on the IR, and to Kyle Cook in 2012, who missed three and a half months.

Tretter had surgery to reattach the ligaments and have a plate and screws inserted to help his ankle heal. Herman predicted Tretter would be out six months.

While Tretter and his agent hoped his season wouldn’t be lost, Tretter looked like a long shot to be on the Packers active roster in 2013.

In a roster prediction show on CheeseheadRadio last August, Bill Huber of Packer Report was asked whether he thought Tretter would be activated this year and his reply was that he would be shocked.

Shocked felt like the appropriate answer. J.C. Tretter has no experience in the Packers offense, and the Packers don’t rush people back. The odds were stacked against Tretter.

Yet on Tuesday, Tretter was activated off of the physically unable to perform list and with recent injuries, some poor play and lack of depth at center, Tretter could realistically be active come game day.

Tretter isn’t the only player who is making an against the odds return.

In addition to the return of both Derek Sherrod and Jerel Worthy, Sean Richardson has come back from the brink of never playing again.

On the opening kickoff in the Packers loss to the Giants in 2012, Sean Richardson injured his neck. He said he never loss feeling, just felt tightness mostly in his back. He practiced a couple of days after the game, but during an evaluation it was discovered the he had a herniated disc.

A month after being placed on injured reserve, Richardson underwent spinal fusion surgery with the same doctor who operated on Peyton Manning and in June of 2013, per Lori Nickel of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Richardson felt optimistic that he was healing ahead of schedule and predicted he would return in time for training camp.

Regarding his surgery,

“A lot of the things they had planned on doing on the neck they didn’t have to do. It was a great.”
Regarding his future, “I just keep faith and keep pushing. I’ll be back out there.”
Yet at the start of training camp, the future did not appear as bright. Rob Demovsky, then with the Green Bay Press Gazette quotes Mike McCarthy, “We’re gathering information and hopefully we’re getting close to a decision with Sean. “

Richardson’s tone was also more somber,

“I’ve got a long life to live…So we’re going through all the tests and different opinions from everybody’s perspective, and we’re just going to go from there.
It’s their decision to clear me or not. If I’m not cleared, I’ll go on to the next step and move on in life.”
In just under two months, Richardson went from a man anxiously planning his return to the field, to a man mentally preparing himself to “move on in life.” None of that feels positive.

In October, five separate doctors cleared Richardson to play. Yet the Packers waited. A full month passed between Richardson receiving clearance and when he joined the active roster.

Since returning, Richardson has played primarily on special teams, racking up over 60% of snaps in each of the three games. Last Sunday against Atlanta, Richardson came off the bench to play 65% of all defensive snaps. Profootballfocus.com credits Richardson with three tackles and one stop in the game.

Neither Tretter nor Richardson were given much hope at the start of training camp to be on the Packers active roster this season, yet here they are. They, along with Sherrod and Worthy represent players who were given time to heal, worked with the staff and away from the public eye, fought back to play again. And in a year where the Packers have lost key starters, are thin at depth at nearly every position and now seem to be moving players to IR quietly and quickly, these stories help tell the better side of the Packers training staff and injury woes.
 
Who has long criticized them for being conservative or too conservative?

Which one of the guys they released or kept out for medical reasons went on to do anything? Terrence Murphy? Nick Collins?

Please tell me???

And you say gather all the facts...yet, I don't believe you, or any of us have all the facts and the Packers do.

To claim you were just insulted by "internet punks" is funny too.

I think the Packers have communicated their decision clearly. They sat Rodgers because they feel it is best for their football team.

Its not a corporation...its an NFL franchise.
You seem to like funny. So you know what's funny? Your last statement that the NFL is not a corporation. That is one of the most asinine things you've said yet, and that is saying something.It's also funny that you are still trolling and challenging every fact that I cite. So yet again, l'll feed the troll. Here's a little blurb showing just how conservative Dr. McKenzie is. He is known as the most powerful man in Green Bay. Eat up troll. http://www.packerpedia.com/powerful.html
Irony thy name is General Tso.

 
Who has long criticized them for being conservative or too conservative?

Which one of the guys they released or kept out for medical reasons went on to do anything? Terrence Murphy? Nick Collins?

Please tell me???

And you say gather all the facts...yet, I don't believe you, or any of us have all the facts and the Packers do.

To claim you were just insulted by "internet punks" is funny too.

I think the Packers have communicated their decision clearly. They sat Rodgers because they feel it is best for their football team.

Its not a corporation...its an NFL franchise.
:goodposting:

I don't recall seeing a criticism of the Packers' medical team being too conservative. It's widely known among Packer fans that they are conservative when it comes to player safety (see Nick Collins, Jermichael Finley, etc) but it's seldom criticized and rarely wrong. Would like to see the good General back up his claim here with some links.

And I don't believe either that we have all the facts. Just because it's not reported in the media does not equate to the Packers' not gathering all the facts.
I already provided a link.
You mean the one you provided for Sho nuff about McKenzie being the most powerful person in GB? Or did you provide another link?

From the story about Doc McKenzie:

Not too long after that, Wolf offered McKenzie a job as team's top physician and medical director. He has turned out to be highly regarded across the league, and in 2011 McKenzie won the Jerry Hawk Rhea Award as the NFLs Physician of the Year. In one capacity or another he has worked with all the coaches and executives in recent Packers history, including Ron Wolf, Mike Holmgren, Bob Harlan, Ray Rhodes, Mike Sherman, Mark Murphy, Ted Thompson, and Mike McCarthy. And according to McKenzie, he has never felt compelled to sacrifice his integrity to let a player on the field.
Now who do you think we should choose to believe?

1) McKenzie, highly respected around the league

2) Posters on FBGs threads
I never said that he made a bad diagnosis. Never. So please stop misrepresenting my argument.

My criticism has been in a couple of areas.

1. Very poor communication internally and externally. To the point where you are starting to piss off Rodgers who was clearly annoyed at not being cleared. The coach, player and medical staff are not on the same page and Rodgers is taking an unnecessary hit in the world of public opinion.

2. The team has wasted a roster spot now for 6 weeks going on 7. What are they going to do, IR him after week 17? And this team could definitely use that roster spot.

3. Don't know for sure they didn't give him a scan this week (once again, poor communication) but the consensus here is that they did not. So if that's the case then there was never any way for Rodgers to get clearance this week. Then why have him practice all week, take first team reps away from Flynn, create an unnecessary distraction, and piss off Rodgers? How is any of this any good?

 
2. The team has wasted a roster spot now for 6 weeks going on 7. What are they going to do, IR him after week 17? And this team could definitely use that roster spot.
Easily the dumbest statement of the year.

Do you actually think they have a chance in hell to win a superbowl if they IR Roders? Do you really think IR'ing Rodgers would give them a better chance at that Super Bowl than waiting till he is full healed?

Now of course, it is POSSIBLE he is never cleared this season. Clearly, that is a chance they are willing to take give their chances without him are as close to zero as it gets.

I would say it is abundantly clear they think there is a very realistic chance he gets cleared before the season is over, otherwise, yeah, they would IR him.

 
2. The team has wasted a roster spot now for 6 weeks going on 7. What are they going to do, IR him after week 17? And this team could definitely use that roster spot.
Easily the dumbest statement of the year.

Do you actually think they have a chance in hell to win a superbowl if they IR Roders? Do you really think IR'ing Rodgers would give them a better chance at that Super Bowl than waiting till he is full healed?

Now of course, it is POSSIBLE he is never cleared this season. Clearly, that is a chance they are willing to take give their chances without him are as close to zero as it gets.

I would say it is abundantly clear they think there is a very realistic chance he gets cleared before the season is over, otherwise, yeah, they would IR him.
Their season is on Sunday.
 
2. The team has wasted a roster spot now for 6 weeks going on 7. What are they going to do, IR him after week 17? And this team could definitely use that roster spot.
Easily the dumbest statement of the year.

Do you actually think they have a chance in hell to win a superbowl if they IR Roders? Do you really think IR'ing Rodgers would give them a better chance at that Super Bowl than waiting till he is full healed?

Now of course, it is POSSIBLE he is never cleared this season. Clearly, that is a chance they are willing to take give their chances without him are as close to zero as it gets.

I would say it is abundantly clear they think there is a very realistic chance he gets cleared before the season is over, otherwise, yeah, they would IR him.
Their season is on Sunday.
That isn't remotely true. If they put Rodgers in too soon and he gets hurt (and given this specific injury those chances are very high), their season is over whether they make the playoffs or not.

If you view it as this week is the only things that matters, and screw the rest of the season, then I guess you are on to something. An NFL organization (along with basically anyone who has ever read your posts) disagrees with you

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Who has long criticized them for being conservative or too conservative?

Which one of the guys they released or kept out for medical reasons went on to do anything? Terrence Murphy? Nick Collins?

Please tell me???

And you say gather all the facts...yet, I don't believe you, or any of us have all the facts and the Packers do.

To claim you were just insulted by "internet punks" is funny too.

I think the Packers have communicated their decision clearly. They sat Rodgers because they feel it is best for their football team.

Its not a corporation...its an NFL franchise.
:goodposting:

I don't recall seeing a criticism of the Packers' medical team being too conservative. It's widely known among Packer fans that they are conservative when it comes to player safety (see Nick Collins, Jermichael Finley, etc) but it's seldom criticized and rarely wrong. Would like to see the good General back up his claim here with some links.

And I don't believe either that we have all the facts. Just because it's not reported in the media does not equate to the Packers' not gathering all the facts.
I already provided a link.
You mean the one you provided for Sho nuff about McKenzie being the most powerful person in GB? Or did you provide another link?

From the story about Doc McKenzie:

Not too long after that, Wolf offered McKenzie a job as team's top physician and medical director. He has turned out to be highly regarded across the league, and in 2011 McKenzie won the Jerry Hawk Rhea Award as the NFLs Physician of the Year. In one capacity or another he has worked with all the coaches and executives in recent Packers history, including Ron Wolf, Mike Holmgren, Bob Harlan, Ray Rhodes, Mike Sherman, Mark Murphy, Ted Thompson, and Mike McCarthy. And according to McKenzie, he has never felt compelled to sacrifice his integrity to let a player on the field.
Now who do you think we should choose to believe?

1) McKenzie, highly respected around the league

2) Posters on FBGs threads
I never said that he made a bad diagnosis. Never. So please stop misrepresenting my argument.

My criticism has been in a couple of areas.

1. Very poor communication internally and externally. To the point where you are starting to piss off Rodgers who was clearly annoyed at not being cleared. The coach, player and medical staff are not on the same page and Rodgers is taking an unnecessary hit in the world of public opinion.

2. The team has wasted a roster spot now for 6 weeks going on 7. What are they going to do, IR him after week 17? And this team could definitely use that roster spot.

3. Don't know for sure they didn't give him a scan this week (once again, poor communication) but the consensus here is that they did not. So if that's the case then there was never any way for Rodgers to get clearance this week. Then why have him practice all week, take first team reps away from Flynn, create an unnecessary distraction, and piss off Rodgers? How is any of this any good?
Lol at this whole post.

1) Are you privy to their internal conversations? How can you say it is poor communication internally? And what makes it poor communication externally? Because you didn't get the explanation you wanted? I don't think they really care about some anonymous posters or trolls on the internet. And Rodgers is pissed? I would expect any player to be pissed about not being able to play. If he isn't, I don't want him on my team. A player doesn't always make the wisest decision regarding their own health, that's why the NFL has team doctors. And how is Rodgers taking an unnecessary hit in the world of public opinion? There are a very small crowd of uninformed internet posters out there that are saying Rodgers is soft but I'm not sure anyone should take them seriously.

2) IR Rodgers when they still have a chance at the playoffs? Please let me know who they could use that roster spot on that would be more important than Rodgers in the coming weeks.

3) Consensus that he wasn't given a scan based on what? A couple of articles speculating. And maybe they had him practice to see how he would respond physically. And he didn't take all the first team reps, very few. Flynn still got all the reps he needed.

 
2. The team has wasted a roster spot now for 6 weeks going on 7. What are they going to do, IR him after week 17? And this team could definitely use that roster spot.
Easily the dumbest statement of the year.

Do you actually think they have a chance in hell to win a superbowl if they IR Roders? Do you really think IR'ing Rodgers would give them a better chance at that Super Bowl than waiting till he is full healed?

Now of course, it is POSSIBLE he is never cleared this season. Clearly, that is a chance they are willing to take give their chances without him are as close to zero as it gets.

I would say it is abundantly clear they think there is a very realistic chance he gets cleared before the season is over, otherwise, yeah, they would IR him.
Their season is on Sunday.
If this is schtick, I can appreciate the dedication. Making yourself look this dumb for the schtick isn't easy.

If you're serious however, dude.

 
Who has long criticized them for being conservative or too conservative?

Which one of the guys they released or kept out for medical reasons went on to do anything? Terrence Murphy? Nick Collins?

Please tell me???

And you say gather all the facts...yet, I don't believe you, or any of us have all the facts and the Packers do.

To claim you were just insulted by "internet punks" is funny too.

I think the Packers have communicated their decision clearly. They sat Rodgers because they feel it is best for their football team.

Its not a corporation...its an NFL franchise.
You seem to like funny. So you know what's funny? Your last statement that the NFL is not a corporation. That is one of the most asinine things you've said yet, and that is saying something.

It's also funny that you are still trolling and challenging every fact that I cite. So yet again, l'll feed the troll. Here's a little blurb showing just how conservative Dr. McKenzie is. He is known as the most powerful man in Green Bay. Eat up troll. http://www.packerpedia.com/powerful.html
Its funny that you claim I am trolling given your statements in this thread.

Its funny that you consider that an NFL team...personnel wise is anything like that of a Corporation. Sorry...its not.

I challenge your opinion. Not facts. Because I don't believe you have stated many facts.

And its a very interesting article.

But I never claimed he was not conservative.

I asked where you get your claim that he has been criticized for it other than you whining about it in this thread.

But glad you can cry about others namecalling...then you go right into it yourself.

Your hypocrisy here is also very funny.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If this is schtick, I can appreciate the dedication. Making yourself look this dumb for the schtick isn't easy.

If you're serious however, dude.
I have also come to the conclusion of either dumbest ever, or genius
I've come to the conclusion that you're an insufferable troll. Perhaps you, King Porn, and Fo Sho are the same person.

In any event, in your earlier medical diatribe / drivel above you said, "The only way Rodgers can re-injure himself or prolong his recovery is by getting hit hard or landing hard." You also put an interesting statement after that which you erased a couple minutes later, something to the effect of "which could very likely happen again". Smart job erasing that one, Doc.

Well, apparently Aaron Rodgers himself disagrees with you and the peanut gallery regarding the likelihood of this type of injury recurring in the next couple weeks:

"As Rodgers pointed out, having played football for 17 of his 30 years of life, he’s only been tackled once in the manner that resulted in a fractured clavicle. The odds of it happening again, on his left side, likely resulting in a displaced fracture that would require surgical repair, are miniscule."

http://www.espnwisconsin.com/common/page.php?feed=2&id=11861&is_corp=1

Don't quit your day job Dr. Ghost :lol:

 
2. The team has wasted a roster spot now for 6 weeks going on 7. What are they going to do, IR him after week 17? And this team could definitely use that roster spot.
Easily the dumbest statement of the year.

Do you actually think they have a chance in hell to win a superbowl if they IR Roders? Do you really think IR'ing Rodgers would give them a better chance at that Super Bowl than waiting till he is full healed?

Now of course, it is POSSIBLE he is never cleared this season. Clearly, that is a chance they are willing to take give their chances without him are as close to zero as it gets.

I would say it is abundantly clear they think there is a very realistic chance he gets cleared before the season is over, otherwise, yeah, they would IR him.
Their season is on Sunday.
If this is schtick, I can appreciate the dedication. Making yourself look this dumb for the schtick isn't easy.

If you're serious however, dude.
How's your backside feeling after the but-blasting that Phenix put on you earlier? :lol:

Yes, the packers season is OVER tomorrow. It's a must win game for them. With Rodgers the game is probably a pickem. Without Rodgers the Cowboys are favored by 7.5 points. I know who I am betting on tomorrow, and it aint Matt Flynn.

But hell, at least Rodgers will be all healed up for the off season. Maybe he and RGIII can go play a couple of pickup games.

 
2. The team has wasted a roster spot now for 6 weeks going on 7. What are they going to do, IR him after week 17? And this team could definitely use that roster spot.
Easily the dumbest statement of the year.

Do you actually think they have a chance in hell to win a superbowl if they IR Roders? Do you really think IR'ing Rodgers would give them a better chance at that Super Bowl than waiting till he is full healed?

Now of course, it is POSSIBLE he is never cleared this season. Clearly, that is a chance they are willing to take give their chances without him are as close to zero as it gets.

I would say it is abundantly clear they think there is a very realistic chance he gets cleared before the season is over, otherwise, yeah, they would IR him.
Their season is on Sunday.
If this is schtick, I can appreciate the dedication. Making yourself look this dumb for the schtick isn't easy.

If you're serious however, dude.
How's your backside feeling after the but-blasting that Phenix put on you earlier? :lol:

Yes, the packers season is OVER tomorrow. It's a must win game for them. With Rodgers the game is probably a pickem. Without Rodgers the Cowboys are favored by 7.5 points. I know who I am betting on tomorrow, and it aint Matt Flynn.

But hell, at least Rodgers will be all healed up for the off season. Maybe he and RGIII can go play a couple of pickup games.
What did the Packers front office tell you when you had your conference call with them this week to let them know your displeasure with the Rodgers situation? Did you let them know their season is over this week if he doesn't play?

 
Who has long criticized them for being conservative or too conservative?

Which one of the guys they released or kept out for medical reasons went on to do anything? Terrence Murphy? Nick Collins?

Please tell me???

And you say gather all the facts...yet, I don't believe you, or any of us have all the facts and the Packers do.

To claim you were just insulted by "internet punks" is funny too.

I think the Packers have communicated their decision clearly. They sat Rodgers because they feel it is best for their football team.

Its not a corporation...its an NFL franchise.
:goodposting:

I don't recall seeing a criticism of the Packers' medical team being too conservative. It's widely known among Packer fans that they are conservative when it comes to player safety (see Nick Collins, Jermichael Finley, etc) but it's seldom criticized and rarely wrong. Would like to see the good General back up his claim here with some links.

And I don't believe either that we have all the facts. Just because it's not reported in the media does not equate to the Packers' not gathering all the facts.
I already provided a link.
You mean the one you provided for Sho nuff about McKenzie being the most powerful person in GB? Or did you provide another link?

From the story about Doc McKenzie:

Not too long after that, Wolf offered McKenzie a job as team's top physician and medical director. He has turned out to be highly regarded across the league, and in 2011 McKenzie won the Jerry Hawk Rhea Award as the NFLs Physician of the Year. In one capacity or another he has worked with all the coaches and executives in recent Packers history, including Ron Wolf, Mike Holmgren, Bob Harlan, Ray Rhodes, Mike Sherman, Mark Murphy, Ted Thompson, and Mike McCarthy. And according to McKenzie, he has never felt compelled to sacrifice his integrity to let a player on the field.
Now who do you think we should choose to believe?

1) McKenzie, highly respected around the league

2) Posters on FBGs threads
I never said that he made a bad diagnosis. Never. So please stop misrepresenting my argument.

My criticism has been in a couple of areas.

1. Very poor communication internally and externally. To the point where you are starting to piss off Rodgers who was clearly annoyed at not being cleared. The coach, player and medical staff are not on the same page and Rodgers is taking an unnecessary hit in the world of public opinion.

2. The team has wasted a roster spot now for 6 weeks going on 7. What are they going to do, IR him after week 17? And this team could definitely use that roster spot.

3. Don't know for sure they didn't give him a scan this week (once again, poor communication) but the consensus here is that they did not. So if that's the case then there was never any way for Rodgers to get clearance this week. Then why have him practice all week, take first team reps away from Flynn, create an unnecessary distraction, and piss off Rodgers? How is any of this any good?
Lol at this whole post.

1) Are you privy to their internal conversations? How can you say it is poor communication internally? And what makes it poor communication externally? Because you didn't get the explanation you wanted? I don't think they really care about some anonymous posters or trolls on the internet. And Rodgers is pissed? I would expect any player to be pissed about not being able to play. If he isn't, I don't want him on my team. A player doesn't always make the wisest decision regarding their own health, that's why the NFL has team doctors. And how is Rodgers taking an unnecessary hit in the world of public opinion? There are a very small crowd of uninformed internet posters out there that are saying Rodgers is soft but I'm not sure anyone should take them seriously.

2) IR Rodgers when they still have a chance at the playoffs? Please let me know who they could use that roster spot on that would be more important than Rodgers in the coming weeks.

3) Consensus that he wasn't given a scan based on what? A couple of articles speculating. And maybe they had him practice to see how he would respond physically. And he didn't take all the first team reps, very few. Flynn still got all the reps he needed.
If Fo Sho is the Cowardly Lion, and Insane is the Tin Man, then I saved the best for last, my dear friend King Porn stache - the scarecrow. Where to begin....

Since you were professional enough to enumerate your gripes with me, I shall respond in kind:

1. WTF are you talking about? Did you forget to take your medications this morning? Please tell your Mom to leave them on your night stand or something. Cuz I can't figure out any intelligent argument in that drivel.

2. Ask your friend (or alter ego, if that's the case) Monsieur Fo Sho how many good roster spots the Pack could have used. In a moment of lucid thinking he actually agreed with me a few posts up.

3. Articles speculating that a scan hadn't been done? Speculating? First of all, congrats on the multi-syllablism. Secondly, there's this great new thing called Google. You ought to try it sometime. Here's an article from the AP addressing the issue of a scan - using Rodger's own words:

Asked after Thursday's practice if he is holding out hope of playing Sunday, Rodgers paused before replying, "Yes."

He says he'll need to get most of the work in Friday's practice after sharing snaps with backup Matt Flynn for the past two days, and the team will likely want team physician Patrick McKenzie to examine him. Rodgers' last CT scan was done on Dec. 3 and did not show sufficient healing in the bone to get him cleared to play.

As of Thursday afternoon, Rodgers said he had not been scanned. He also would not say whether a scan has been scheduled. Asked if he would be scanned before the week is out, Rodgers replied, "I'm not sure about that."

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2013/12/12/aaron-rodgers-still-holding-out-hope-hell-play-sunday-for-packers/

 
If this is schtick, I can appreciate the dedication. Making yourself look this dumb for the schtick isn't easy.

If you're serious however, dude.
I have also come to the conclusion of either dumbest ever, or genius
I've come to the conclusion that you're an insufferable troll. Perhaps you, King Porn, and Fo Sho are the same person.

In any event, in your earlier medical diatribe / drivel above you said, "The only way Rodgers can re-injure himself or prolong his recovery is by getting hit hard or landing hard." You also put an interesting statement after that which you erased a couple minutes later, something to the effect of "which could very likely happen again". Smart job erasing that one, Doc.

Well, apparently Aaron Rodgers himself disagrees with you and the peanut gallery regarding the likelihood of this type of injury recurring in the next couple weeks:

"As Rodgers pointed out, having played football for 17 of his 30 years of life, he’s only been tackled once in the manner that resulted in a fractured clavicle. The odds of it happening again, on his left side, likely resulting in a displaced fracture that would require surgical repair, are miniscule."

http://www.espnwisconsin.com/common/page.php?feed=2&id=11861&is_corp=1

Don't quit your day job Dr. Ghost :lol:
HUh?? What did I erase?

And I definitely stand by the fact that his chances of re-breaking his clavicle are WAYYYYY higher if it is not healed yet. That is just common sense, not to mention medical fact.

When he is 100% healed, then yeah, it' s rare injury.

I mean, is this seriously the best you have to make me look bad?? For realz??? PLease continue, my lord.

I mean, good god, a microcephalic monkey would be able to figure out why they are even using the word "risk" when talking about him playing.

LOL, jesus. I just happened to look at the article you posted, and the next paragaraph, yes literally the next paragraph was this:

“This is my 17th year of football, played quarterback all 17 years, and I've had one hit like that,” Rodgers said of Bears defensive end Shea McClellin’s sack of him 29 days earlier. “I got kind of jammed into the ground, my elbow gets stuck. A similar hit like that, which of course is rare but possible, would do significant damage at this point. So that's kind of where we're at.”

Not to mention what you quoted was only paraphrased, not a quote from Rodgers.

I am leaning genius for you. NObody can be this good at being so bad.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So...more name calling from the general...and still nothing showing any actual criticism of Doc McKenzie for being too conservative?

Yeah...its everyone else that are trolling.

 
Who has long criticized them for being conservative or too conservative?

Which one of the guys they released or kept out for medical reasons went on to do anything? Terrence Murphy? Nick Collins?

Please tell me???

And you say gather all the facts...yet, I don't believe you, or any of us have all the facts and the Packers do.

To claim you were just insulted by "internet punks" is funny too.

I think the Packers have communicated their decision clearly. They sat Rodgers because they feel it is best for their football team.

Its not a corporation...its an NFL franchise.
:goodposting:

I don't recall seeing a criticism of the Packers' medical team being too conservative. It's widely known among Packer fans that they are conservative when it comes to player safety (see Nick Collins, Jermichael Finley, etc) but it's seldom criticized and rarely wrong. Would like to see the good General back up his claim here with some links.

And I don't believe either that we have all the facts. Just because it's not reported in the media does not equate to the Packers' not gathering all the facts.
I already provided a link.
You mean the one you provided for Sho nuff about McKenzie being the most powerful person in GB? Or did you provide another link?

From the story about Doc McKenzie:

Not too long after that, Wolf offered McKenzie a job as team's top physician and medical director. He has turned out to be highly regarded across the league, and in 2011 McKenzie won the Jerry Hawk Rhea Award as the NFLs Physician of the Year. In one capacity or another he has worked with all the coaches and executives in recent Packers history, including Ron Wolf, Mike Holmgren, Bob Harlan, Ray Rhodes, Mike Sherman, Mark Murphy, Ted Thompson, and Mike McCarthy. And according to McKenzie, he has never felt compelled to sacrifice his integrity to let a player on the field.
Now who do you think we should choose to believe?

1) McKenzie, highly respected around the league

2) Posters on FBGs threads
I never said that he made a bad diagnosis. Never. So please stop misrepresenting my argument.

My criticism has been in a couple of areas.

1. Very poor communication internally and externally. To the point where you are starting to piss off Rodgers who was clearly annoyed at not being cleared. The coach, player and medical staff are not on the same page and Rodgers is taking an unnecessary hit in the world of public opinion.

2. The team has wasted a roster spot now for 6 weeks going on 7. What are they going to do, IR him after week 17? And this team could definitely use that roster spot.

3. Don't know for sure they didn't give him a scan this week (once again, poor communication) but the consensus here is that they did not. So if that's the case then there was never any way for Rodgers to get clearance this week. Then why have him practice all week, take first team reps away from Flynn, create an unnecessary distraction, and piss off Rodgers? How is any of this any good?
Lol at this whole post.

1) Are you privy to their internal conversations? How can you say it is poor communication internally? And what makes it poor communication externally? Because you didn't get the explanation you wanted? I don't think they really care about some anonymous posters or trolls on the internet. And Rodgers is pissed? I would expect any player to be pissed about not being able to play. If he isn't, I don't want him on my team. A player doesn't always make the wisest decision regarding their own health, that's why the NFL has team doctors. And how is Rodgers taking an unnecessary hit in the world of public opinion? There are a very small crowd of uninformed internet posters out there that are saying Rodgers is soft but I'm not sure anyone should take them seriously.

2) IR Rodgers when they still have a chance at the playoffs? Please let me know who they could use that roster spot on that would be more important than Rodgers in the coming weeks.

3) Consensus that he wasn't given a scan based on what? A couple of articles speculating. And maybe they had him practice to see how he would respond physically. And he didn't take all the first team reps, very few. Flynn still got all the reps he needed.
If Fo Sho is the Cowardly Lion, and Insane is the Tin Man, then I saved the best for last, my dear friend King Porn stache - the scarecrow. Where to begin....

Since you were professional enough to enumerate your gripes with me, I shall respond in kind:

1. WTF are you talking about? Did you forget to take your medications this morning? Please tell your Mom to leave them on your night stand or something. Cuz I can't figure out any intelligent argument in that drivel.

2. Ask your friend (or alter ego, if that's the case) Monsieur Fo Sho how many good roster spots the Pack could have used. In a moment of lucid thinking he actually agreed with me a few posts up.

3. Articles speculating that a scan hadn't been done? Speculating? First of all, congrats on the multi-syllablism. Secondly, there's this great new thing called Google. You ought to try it sometime. Here's an article from the AP addressing the issue of a scan - using Rodger's own words:

Asked after Thursday's practice if he is holding out hope of playing Sunday, Rodgers paused before replying, "Yes."

He says he'll need to get most of the work in Friday's practice after sharing snaps with backup Matt Flynn for the past two days, and the team will likely want team physician Patrick McKenzie to examine him. Rodgers' last CT scan was done on Dec. 3 and did not show sufficient healing in the bone to get him cleared to play.

As of Thursday afternoon, Rodgers said he had not been scanned. He also would not say whether a scan has been scheduled. Asked if he would be scanned before the week is out, Rodgers replied, "I'm not sure about that."

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2013/12/12/aaron-rodgers-still-holding-out-hope-hell-play-sunday-for-packers/
And there we have it. You've been around this long and made less than 100 posts a year but you come out in full force for this topic? Bravo. It was much more elaborate than most alias' goto. A lot of effort on your part. You really had us thinking you were that stupid to believe there is a conspiracy in the Packers front office that Rodgers is fed up with. The level of detail was astounding. I honestly thought I was talking to a child new to the game or someone with a mental disability of some kind. Well done.

So good effort on the troll job. It was impressive. You had me fooled.

 
Who has long criticized them for being conservative or too conservative?

Which one of the guys they released or kept out for medical reasons went on to do anything? Terrence Murphy? Nick Collins?

Please tell me???

And you say gather all the facts...yet, I don't believe you, or any of us have all the facts and the Packers do.

To claim you were just insulted by "internet punks" is funny too.

I think the Packers have communicated their decision clearly. They sat Rodgers because they feel it is best for their football team.

Its not a corporation...its an NFL franchise.
:goodposting:

I don't recall seeing a criticism of the Packers' medical team being too conservative. It's widely known among Packer fans that they are conservative when it comes to player safety (see Nick Collins, Jermichael Finley, etc) but it's seldom criticized and rarely wrong. Would like to see the good General back up his claim here with some links.

And I don't believe either that we have all the facts. Just because it's not reported in the media does not equate to the Packers' not gathering all the facts.
I already provided a link.
You mean the one you provided for Sho nuff about McKenzie being the most powerful person in GB? Or did you provide another link?

From the story about Doc McKenzie:

Not too long after that, Wolf offered McKenzie a job as team's top physician and medical director. He has turned out to be highly regarded across the league, and in 2011 McKenzie won the Jerry Hawk Rhea Award as the NFLs Physician of the Year. In one capacity or another he has worked with all the coaches and executives in recent Packers history, including Ron Wolf, Mike Holmgren, Bob Harlan, Ray Rhodes, Mike Sherman, Mark Murphy, Ted Thompson, and Mike McCarthy. And according to McKenzie, he has never felt compelled to sacrifice his integrity to let a player on the field.
Now who do you think we should choose to believe?

1) McKenzie, highly respected around the league

2) Posters on FBGs threads
I never said that he made a bad diagnosis. Never. So please stop misrepresenting my argument.

My criticism has been in a couple of areas.

1. Very poor communication internally and externally. To the point where you are starting to piss off Rodgers who was clearly annoyed at not being cleared. The coach, player and medical staff are not on the same page and Rodgers is taking an unnecessary hit in the world of public opinion.

2. The team has wasted a roster spot now for 6 weeks going on 7. What are they going to do, IR him after week 17? And this team could definitely use that roster spot.

3. Don't know for sure they didn't give him a scan this week (once again, poor communication) but the consensus here is that they did not. So if that's the case then there was never any way for Rodgers to get clearance this week. Then why have him practice all week, take first team reps away from Flynn, create an unnecessary distraction, and piss off Rodgers? How is any of this any good?
Lol at this whole post.

1) Are you privy to their internal conversations? How can you say it is poor communication internally? And what makes it poor communication externally? Because you didn't get the explanation you wanted? I don't think they really care about some anonymous posters or trolls on the internet. And Rodgers is pissed? I would expect any player to be pissed about not being able to play. If he isn't, I don't want him on my team. A player doesn't always make the wisest decision regarding their own health, that's why the NFL has team doctors. And how is Rodgers taking an unnecessary hit in the world of public opinion? There are a very small crowd of uninformed internet posters out there that are saying Rodgers is soft but I'm not sure anyone should take them seriously.

2) IR Rodgers when they still have a chance at the playoffs? Please let me know who they could use that roster spot on that would be more important than Rodgers in the coming weeks.

3) Consensus that he wasn't given a scan based on what? A couple of articles speculating. And maybe they had him practice to see how he would respond physically. And he didn't take all the first team reps, very few. Flynn still got all the reps he needed.
If Fo Sho is the Cowardly Lion, and Insane is the Tin Man, then I saved the best for last, my dear friend King Porn stache - the scarecrow. Where to begin....

Since you were professional enough to enumerate your gripes with me, I shall respond in kind:

1. WTF are you talking about? Did you forget to take your medications this morning? Please tell your Mom to leave them on your night stand or something. Cuz I can't figure out any intelligent argument in that drivel.

2. Ask your friend (or alter ego, if that's the case) Monsieur Fo Sho how many good roster spots the Pack could have used. In a moment of lucid thinking he actually agreed with me a few posts up.

3. Articles speculating that a scan hadn't been done? Speculating? First of all, congrats on the multi-syllablism. Secondly, there's this great new thing called Google. You ought to try it sometime. Here's an article from the AP addressing the issue of a scan - using Rodger's own words:

Asked after Thursday's practice if he is holding out hope of playing Sunday, Rodgers paused before replying, "Yes."

He says he'll need to get most of the work in Friday's practice after sharing snaps with backup Matt Flynn for the past two days, and the team will likely want team physician Patrick McKenzie to examine him. Rodgers' last CT scan was done on Dec. 3 and did not show sufficient healing in the bone to get him cleared to play.

As of Thursday afternoon, Rodgers said he had not been scanned. He also would not say whether a scan has been scheduled. Asked if he would be scanned before the week is out, Rodgers replied, "I'm not sure about that."

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2013/12/12/aaron-rodgers-still-holding-out-hope-hell-play-sunday-for-packers/
Aaah, the old 'I can't support my argument anymore so let's start calling names' maneuver. And the old 'I can't possibly be this wrong and have so many people disagree with me so they must all be aliases' delusion. There's an old saying in poker that says, "Look around the room. if you can't spot the sucker in the room, then you're probably it"

3. Articles speculating that a scan hadn't been done? Speculating? First of all, congrats on the multi-syllablism. Secondly, there's this great new thing called Google. You ought to try it sometime. Here's an article from the AP addressing the issue of a scan - using Rodger's own words:

Asked after Thursday's practice if he is holding out hope of playing Sunday, Rodgers paused before replying, "Yes."

He says he'll need to get most of the work in Friday's practice after sharing snaps with backup Matt Flynn for the past two days, and the team will likely want team physician Patrick McKenzie to examine him. Rodgers' last CT scan was done on Dec. 3 and did not show sufficient healing in the bone to get him cleared to play.

As of Thursday afternoon, Rodgers said he had not been scanned. He also would not say whether a scan has been scheduled. Asked if he would be scanned before the week is out, Rodgers replied, "I'm not sure about that."

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2013/12/12/aaron-rodgers-still-holding-out-hope-hell-play-sunday-for-packers/
Let's see if you can follow this. It's still just speculating by the reporters. They don't know either. You cite articles that a scan wasn't done. All of them based on Rodgers' comments to the media after practice on Thursday. I linked earlier an article by Jason Wilde saying a scan was done on Thursday afternoon, presumably AFTER he talked to the media.

http://www.espnwisconsin.com/common/page.php?feed=2&id=12121&is_corp=1

An NFL source said that Rodgers’ collarbone was scanned on Thursday – presumably after he spoke at his locker following Thursday’s practice – and that he, McKenzie and McCarthy went over the results of that scan Friday. (McCarthy when asked during his press conference if Rodgers had been scanned Friday, replied, “I’m not going to get into scans and this and that. He was not scanned this morning.”)

Although the scan did not show a fully healed collarbone, Rodgers was willing to accept whatever risk would be associated with playing. But even though he was, McKenzie and McCarthy were not willing to put the franchise's $110 million man in harm's way.
So according to your article, when Rodgers talked to the media on Thursday he said he had not been scanned as of yet. And when asked if he would be scanned, he wouldn't say whether one was scheduled or not. Completely leaving it open that he may have been scheduled for a scan later that afternoon. When asked if a scan was scheduled later that week, Rodgers responded "I'm not sure about that". Well it's Thursday afternoon. Rodgers would know if he was scheduled for another scan. But instead of saying, "No, no scan is scheduled." he played coy and left it open. So just maybe, maybe, at the time Rodgers addressed the media after Thursday's practice no scan was done. So then the articles you cited (or googled) were correct at the time.Then after talking to the media Rodgers went and had a scan. So the article I cited about Rodgers having a scan this week is also correct. Possible, right? So i guess we just don't know for sure, now do we? WE ARE JUST SPECULATING!

I'm now done with you and this argument. My Mom is calling me, something about taking my meds.

 
Half game out of the wildcard and the division lead with two to go. Baltimore still has to play Detroit, New England and Cincinatti and Chicago has to play at Philly.

And they actually control their own destiny; if Detroit wins against Baltimore, two wins puts GB in the wildcard, and if Baltimore wins, two wins gives GB the division.

Rodgers coming back week 17 for a playoff-deciding game at Solider Field? Could be a good narrative.

 
What? GB has no shot at the wildcard with 2 teams at 10-4. They need to win out and have Detroit lose one to win the division.
Oh, sorry, was reading the brackets wrong.

You're right, they'll need Detroit to lose. Best chance of that is tomorrow against a Baltimore team that's still in it.

 
I think it's pretty dang unlikely they'll trot him out against the Steelers defense.
That doesn't make any sense. They will trot him out when he is medically cleared. Period. When he is cleared his chances of a re-injury are no more than before he was hurt.

 
I think it's pretty dang unlikely they'll trot him out against the Steelers defense.
That doesn't make any sense. They will trot him out when he is medically cleared. Period. When he is cleared his chances of a re-injury are no more than before he was hurt.
That's not true at all with an injury like a broken collarbone. It's possible to return to activities well before the bone is back to full strength. Typically you'll be medically cleared to begin activity as soon as they're satisfied the bones have union, but it will be several months after that before the bone has regained normal strength. Each day of healing reduces your risk of reinjury, but Rodgers' collarbone will not be back to pre-injury strength during this season. So it's a question of risk management.

 
I think it's pretty dang unlikely they'll trot him out against the Steelers defense.
That doesn't make any sense. They will trot him out when he is medically cleared. Period. When he is cleared his chances of a re-injury are no more than before he was hurt.
That's not true at all with an injury like a broken collarbone. It's possible to return to activities well before the bone is back to full strength. Typically you'll be medically cleared to begin activity as soon as they're satisfied the bones have union, but it will be several months after that before the bone has regained normal strength. Each day of healing reduces your risk of reinjury, but Rodgers' collarbone will not be back to pre-injury strength during this season. So it's a question of risk management.
Unless the break was the most minor of breaks (which we dont know since we cant see the xray), in which case it is possible for the bone to be fully healed before this season is over.

And when I say medically cleared, I dont mean cleared for activity. I mean cleared to take an NFL hit, as in the bone is fully healed.

I hate finding a source and copy/pasting it, but what the hell.

"The time for a broken collarbone to fully heal depends on the severity of the injury. In children, complete healing may take as little as three to six weeks. In adults, six to 16 weeks or more are often necessary for a collarbone to heal solidly."

We do not know the severity, but I am pretty darn confident they will not give a damn who their opponent is. When he is fully healed, he is playing.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The question now becomes if he plays, do you start him? This is the championship for most people. Obviously he didn't help us get here so we should have a viable option to use. How rusty will he be after 7 weeks off? Can we really plug him in against a decent Steelers defense and expect vintage Rodgers numbers on this most important week?

 
I think he has to go this week... Supposedly he wanted to go against Big D, that has to mean he feels fairly well. If he is feeling well enough to play last week, he needs to be close to getting cleared.

Unfortunately for me, my Rodgers team lost this week... I'll start him for 3rd place if he plays.

Also a huge confidence boost for Jordy & Lacy owners. Regardless of rust, Pitt would have to respect the pass a lot more and unstack the box.

 
If I make it past this week I'm rolling with cutler vs philly

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The question now becomes if he plays, do you start him? This is the championship for most people. Obviously he didn't help us get here so we should have a viable option to use. How rusty will he be after 7 weeks off? Can we really plug him in against a decent Steelers defense and expect vintage Rodgers numbers on this most important week?
Pittsburgh's defense is 20th in DVOA, 21st is adjusted DVOA, 12th in yards allowed and 16th in points allowed. They rank slightly higher than that in passing yards and TDs allowed (9th and 7th), but that's probably a function of who they've played rather than the makeup of their defense. Obviously there's no explosive offenses in their division. The two above average quarterbacks they've played this year torced them for 413 yards and 4 TD (Brady) and 362 yards at 2 TD (Stafford).

I can't say whether he's worth the risk or not coming off the injury if he plays, but I don't think the fact that he's facing the Steelers should really sway you one way or another. They're average at best.

 
Rotoworld:

Speaking Monday, Packers coach Mike McCarthy said he's "game-planning right now for Matt Flynn" to be the team's Week 16 starter.

It's the same tact the Pack have taken each of the past three weeks. Sunday's miracle victory has ramped the Aaron Rodgers (collarbone) speculation up to a fever pitch, but the Pack are determined not to make an emotional decision. Rodgers will be re-evaluated on Wednesday. There's a real chance that Rodgers will return against the Steelers, but Flynn should be considered the favorite to start until further notice.

Related: Aaron Rodgers

Source: packers.com
Packers coach Mike McCarthy said the team "didn't even discuss" Aaron Rodgers' (collarbone) health on Monday, and that he'll be re-evaluated on Wednesday.

According to McCarthy, the team will "set a plan" for Rodgers on Wednesday. Rodgers has slowly — very slowly — ramped up his practice participation the past two weeks, and might finally be ready to crash through the door for Week 16. That being said, the Pack have been absolutely allergic to making a rash decision with regards to their franchise player, and appear committed to clearing him if and only if he gets a positive scan. Until that happens, Matt Flynn should be considered the favorite to make another start. It's worth noting that FOX's Pam Oliver reported during Sunday's broadcast that the Pack thought Rodgers was close to suiting up against the Cowboys, and that Rodgers himself at one point believed he would start.

Related: Matt Flynn

Source: Rob Demovsky on Twitter
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top