i_am_the_swammi Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 IMO, two bad things happened yesterday if you are relying on Rodgers & Co. for your Week 16 Super Bowl. 1. SF lost yesterday, giving the packers a full 3-game lead for the top spot in the NFC, which they will clinch this weekend with a win over the Chiefs, or a loss by both NO and SF. I am guessing they get it via the win, which officially would make their Week 16 game meaningless (except for their pursuit of perfection). Had SF won yesterday (and presumably next week), then the Packers would still have needed to win Week 16, and would have likely played their starters as normal to do so. 2. The loss of Jennings: while the results of his MRI are not known, it looks like he'll miss at least a couple weeks...perhaps much longer if there is indeed a tear. Does losing their #1 WR plant the seed of resting players into the back of the minds of the coaching staff even more than ever? Will they now start to pull players earlier than usual? Will some players get only a quarter (as opposed to a half or three quarters) of action in Week 16 if everything is wrapped up, regardless of going for 16-0? Those two big happenings could go a long way in determining more than a handful of fantasy championships this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 I was surprised to see even Rodney Harrison on Sunday Night Football agree that sitting players was a good idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 We have this discussion every year and it pretty much always pans out the same. Although teams that have clinched a bye and can't move up and down the standings will likely sit starters for week 17, they'd be fools to do so for week 16. Doing so would render them inactive (or close to it) for week 16, week 17 and the bye week before they have to face what is probably a decent opponent. That's a risk of too much rust to shake off and too long to retain game shape. I don't recall any team sitting starters for all but a quarter of week 16, though others might. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 You don't have an undefeated season on the line every year though . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted December 12, 2011 Author Share Posted December 12, 2011 Although teams that have clinched a bye and can't move up and down the standings will likely sit starters for week 17, they'd be fools to do so for week 16. I doubt they sit the entire game....they want to maintain some continuity for sure. I think they also plays some week 17, for the same reason. Part of me is hoping that with the Bears and Lions still in the wild-card mix, the Packers will do their part to make sure no one is handed a playoff birth because they took the week off. That said, if the Packers have clinched HFA, are up 14-0 on the Bears early in Week 16, and Rodgers & Co. have gotten some good work in....would it totally shock you to see Flynn mid-2nd quarter? All I am saying is that with the SF loss, GB likely no longer has to win that game....whereas if they did, Rodgers would play as normal until the game was completely in hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Trick Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Call me the skeptic, but I think Rodgers and McCarthy are the type of men that will pursuit perfection and will not sit unless things are wrapped up. I think they will play until everything is secured. I think they will keep plugging along to try and make history and win at all costs. I am a Chiefs fan first, but a Packers fan second and I hope they feel this way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted December 12, 2011 Author Share Posted December 12, 2011 Call me the skeptic, but I think Rodgers and McCarthy are the type of men that will pursuit perfection and will not sit unless things are wrapped up. I think they will play until everything is secured. I think they will keep plugging along to try and make history and win at all costs. I am a Chiefs fan first, but a Packers fan second and I hope they feel this way. I'm with you 100%....I hope they feel the same as you, and that going 16-0 is now a real goal. Just not sure we are going to see Rodgers in the pocket his usual 45-50 times a game as we did earlier in the season in order for perfection to happen. On the flip side, his lower-than-normal 2 TD passes yesterday now leaves him 11 short of the record (which is still a possibility if he goes for 4 next week). Not sure where that part of history ranks in the pecking order, either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 I doubt they sit the entire game....they want to maintain some continuity for sure. I think they also plays some week 17, for the same reason. Part of me is hoping that with the Bears and Lions still in the wild-card mix, the Packers will do their part to make sure no one is handed a playoff birth because they took the week off. That said, if the Packers have clinched HFA, are up 14-0 on the Bears early in Week 16, and Rodgers & Co. have gotten some good work in....would it totally shock you to see Flynn mid-2nd quarter? All I am saying is that with the SF loss, GB likely no longer has to win that game....whereas if they did, Rodgers would play as normal until the game was completely in hand. I see your point. I also think a half of Rodgers might be better than a full game from most other QBs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted December 12, 2011 Author Share Posted December 12, 2011 I see your point. I also think a quarter of Rodgers might be better than a full game from most other QBs. agreed....but if you took him early in a draft as your team's "stud", and took lesser RBs and WRs later to compensate....you are likely going to pay the price now. When you drafted Rodgers, you took him with the knowledge he'd likely go for 3 TDs/300 yards a game on average (which he has been to this point)...that helps cover a lot of lesser positions, and allows you to be weaker at RB or WR than your competitors. but now, if he's only gonna get you 2 TDs/200 in a half of work, and then sit for the rest of the game....some teams will likely need uber-performances from some un-uber talent in order to get by. Rodgers likely carried a lot of owners to the playoffs. For him to be "just another QB" at this point will kill many teams chances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patriots Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 The NFL should institute some sort of bonus for going 19-0. There should be a bonus paid to the players and coaches. They could even insure it as it is not likely to happen very often if ever. Give teams an incentive to go for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTSuper7 Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 The NFL should institute some sort of bonus for going 19-0. There should be a bonus paid to the players and coaches. They could even insure it as it is not likely to happen very often if ever. Give teams an incentive to go for it. The Packers should automatically get to play in the following year's Super Bowl if they go 19-0 this year, kinda like how Daniel LaRusso was able to defend his championship against Mike Barnes in Karate Kid III... Yeah, I went there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL Fan Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Was anyone else amused by how passionately Tony Dungy defended the strategy of sitting the starters. How'd that work out for ya' Tony? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Was anyone else amused by how passionately Tony Dungy defended the strategy of sitting the starters. How'd that work out for ya' Tony? Caldwell was the Colts coach when they were 14-0. Not Dungy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL Fan Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Caldwell was the Colts coach when they were 14-0. Not Dungy. Doh! My Colts history sucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 I'm with you 100%....I hope they feel the same as you, and that going 16-0 is now a real goal. no link but I read somewhere a week ago that McCarthy said if they have a chance they'll do everything they can to go unbeaten FWIW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunday Couch Potatoe Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 They'll rest starters in second half of last 2 games and still remain undefeated. Call it a win win! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 PackerFans have not seen much of the team this year, the final two games at home being where the schedule finally evens up. Fans in the cold, fans who support the team financially to unprecedented degrees deserve to see spirited football. One of the advantages the Packers have if they get HFA is the mystique of near invincibility in Lambeau in the cold. They do not want to plant the seed right before they need that mystique that teams can come in there and beat the Packers. If they were on the road and out of conference they might be more cautious, but at Lambeau I expect to see a pretty solid effort Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadDawg Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Rodgers has concussion history (twice last season I believe). Next couple of games could mirror last Sun, with him being rested (protected) if the situation warrants. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 I suddenly have a hugh vested interest in this, because if the Falcons go 2 out of their next 3 (JAX, NOS, TBB), then the only thing that can keep them out of the playoffs is if both CHI and DET run the table, facing the Pack in weeks 16 & 17... At this point, I'm not even sure if the Hanie-led Bears can take on a Flynn-led Packers, so I'm glad they face them first. If I were a Rodgers owner, however, I might be starting to sweat a little bit that they might sit Rodgers during the Bears game if they get a good enough lead, and possibly even play more versus the Lions for 16-0 and playoff momentum (when it's too late for Rodgers owners)... But I guess the upside to that risk is that he probably still needs to put up pretty decent stats to get them a good lead.... Whether that's enough for championship hopes though, is harder to say... I know McCarthy said they'd go for it if they have the opportunity, but after the Jennings injury, I wonder just how much they'll really risk to do it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted December 20, 2011 Author Share Posted December 20, 2011 Any drama that existed over whether GB will play their starters appears to be over, unless SF loses on Saturday to the Seahawks But if form holds, and the Niners take care of business and don't suffer a letdown Saturday.....GB will need to play to win Sunday night to keep their lead for the #1 seed. Rodgers owners can breathe a little easier Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
historymike Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Rodgers owners can breathe a little easier Agreed that rodgers will be busy this week, barring the Packers jumping out to a 4-TD lead or something. I think it is safe to assume owners will get at least three quarters out of Rodgers, which of course is usually better than four quarters from most other QBs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.