Jump to content

GDT Week 4 - Bears @ Packers

MNPackfan32

By MNPackfan32
in Green Bay Packers

Player of the Game?  

37 members have voted

  1. 1. Player of the Game?

    • Aaron Rodgers
      16
    • Jordy Nelson
      4
    • Josh Jones
      9
    • Kevin King
      3
    • Ty Montgomery
      5

Recommended Posts

Green19

Green19

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, PACKRULE said:

Obviously only the players and teams know what's up with this but Bahk tested pregame against Atlanta and now will miss his 3rd game. Seems either so dam odd or we are the most conservative team when it comes to an injury. Don't get me wrong I don't want to trot out players that are hurt, but a 70% Bahk may be leaps and bounds better then a 100% Pancake or Mccray.

The issue is it's a hamstring with Bakh. They are likely holding him out because they don't want him keep hurting it. And making an injury last all year.

So although a 70% is better... the danger of him re-injuring maybe too high at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
packfanfb

packfanfb

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, PACKRULE said:

Obviously only the players and teams know what's up with this but Bahk tested pregame against Atlanta and now will miss his 3rd game. Seems either so dam odd or we are the most conservative team when it comes to an injury. Don't get me wrong I don't want to trot out players that are hurt, but a 70% Bahk may be leaps and bounds better then a 100% Pancake or Mccray.

Yea, it's pretty crazy. I was FLOORED when he didn't play against Atlanta...3 freaking weeks ago. Remember, this was an injury that didn't even force Bakh to miss a damn play during the Seattle game...

It's patently obvious we are being conservative. I've said all along GB's eyes got big when they saw 10 days between Chicago and Dallas and the team wants to give that extra time off for Bakh and Bulaga. Frankly, I was surprised Bulaga played last week, I just assumed you wouldn't see either of them again until Dallas. Now that Bulaga came back and aggravated his injury, you know GB is going to wait until they are both 110%. I think Bakh could play Thursday and could play well on Thursday, and probably is pissed that he's not playing Thursday. But this is no surprise if you've watched GB over the years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
deltarich87

deltarich87

Posted
Posted

Ugh this Tackle situation stinks. Please let this be the last week both Bak/Bulaga are out and the extra few days rest between this game and next is enough to get them back out there. Unbelievable how quickly that position has been ravaged by injury.

Gonna be ugly again on offense tomorrow....gotta just try and find a way to get the W

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Norm

Norm

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, packfanfb said:

Yea, it's pretty crazy. I was FLOORED when he didn't play against Atlanta...3 freaking weeks ago. Remember, this was an injury that didn't even force Bakh to miss a damn play during the Seattle game...

It's patently obvious we are being conservative. I've said all along GB's eyes got big when they saw 10 days between Chicago and Dallas and the team wants to give that extra time off for Bakh and Bulaga. Frankly, I was surprised Bulaga played last week, I just assumed you wouldn't see either of them again until Dallas. Now that Bulaga came back and aggravated his injury, you know GB is going to wait until they are both 110%. I think Bakh could play Thursday and could play well on Thursday, and probably is pissed that he's not playing Thursday. But this is no surprise if you've watched GB over the years. 

Isn't the fact Bryan got hurt again something that backs up being conservative?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
packfanfb

packfanfb

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, NormSizedMidget said:

Isn't the fact Bryan got hurt again something that backs up being conservative?

You have to balance it. If Bahk can physically go, you have to let him play. This game tomorrow is extremely important. If you want a shot at a top 2 seed, you cant lose at home to the Bears. I'd almost rather have the weaker team on the field against Dallas where our chances of losing are higher even with a healthy team. We cant drop a home game IMO, especially one of easier ones on paper like the Bears. With Bulaga and Bakh not playing, the Bears chances to win just went from 0% to at least a chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Norm

Norm

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

You have to balance it. If Bahk can physically go, you have to let him play. This game tomorrow is extremely important. If you want a shot at a top 2 seed, you cant lose at home to the Bears. I'd almost rather have the weaker team on the field against Dallas where our chances of losing are higher even with a healthy team. We cant drop a home game IMO, especially one of easier ones on paper like the Bears. With Bulaga and Bakh not playing, the Bears chances to win just went from 0% to at least a chance.

That's some backwards *** logic. Sounds like you're almost conceding we lost to Dallas which I guess shouldn't surprise me.

I don't know what physical go means. But if the docs say yeah he can play but there is X% of reinjury you weigh that. They aren't conservative for conservation's sake. They weigh the risks. I know you think every decision they make it a mistake but you have to know somewhere in your mind this is true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CWood21

CWood21

Posted
Posted

Been a while, and it's a Thursday night game, so let's make this a 100+ page GDT.  We haven't had one of those in a while.

@NormSizedMidget @packfanfb @deltarich87 @Mr. Fussnputz @Green19 @40Year Pack Fan @RoellPreston88 @LargeFarva @Packerraymond @PACKRULE @PackyAttacky @Gopackgonerd @{Family Ghost} @JBURGE25 @Argus @Pugger @Shanedorf @pollino14 @Cakeshoppe @BrettFavre004 @MathMan @packerrfan74 @eyecatcher @vegas492 @Cadmus @squire12 @Boondoggle @Haha21 @TheOnlyThing @MNPackfan32 @KFP7 @SpeightTheVillain @skibrett15 @Spartacus @Pad Level @HawaiiFan808 @gizmo2012 @ChaRisMa @spilltray @justo @jontat83 @Dubz41 @driftwood @TransientTexan @AlexGreen#20 @HorizontoZenith @bkobow05 @DocHambone @MantyWrestler @ReadyToThump @Packer_ESP @Stevein2012 @LacyIsGood @CalhounLambeau @jleisher @Lieker @Bieker @Joe @PossibleCabbage @Bauman1535 @DavidatMIZZOU @wgbeethree @KManX89 @cannondale @chillparsi1 @Acrid Josher @St Vince @Slinky @MaryTsraining3s @49-Sweep @68md @biletnikoff @BluePacker @Bullet Club @Cheesehead430 @crkone @domonz @Eternal @fattlipp @fotballer @Gopher Trace @green 01 @HyponGrey @jake1962 @Ketchup @MrBoom @packerjmf @SamClemens89 @SplashDive @Squatch @thrILL! @tttmikeb @ugLymayNe

Also, if you haven't already add the Packers to your favorite NFL team in your profile.

Maybe if we're lucky, we will get some good banter from our divisional rivals.

@Madmike90 @G08 @Nads786 @RunningVaccs @WindyCity @Superman(DH23) @51to54 @CBears019 @blkwdw13 @Tyty @malak1 @AZBearsFan @GOGRIESE @Bear Down @Bowler1215 @chisoxguy7 @IronMike84 @Buddyboy @HuskieBear @Sugashane @topwop1 @Rogerthat

BTW, if you're a Packers fans and not listed in my group call let me know in here and I'll give you a free like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CWood21

CWood21

Posted
Posted
52 minutes ago, NormSizedMidget said:

That's some backwards *** logic. Sounds like you're almost conceding we lost to Dallas which I guess shouldn't surprise me.

I don't know what physical go means. But if the docs say yeah he can play but there is X% of reinjury you weigh that. They aren't conservative for conservation's sake. They weigh the risks. I know you think every decision they make it a mistake but you have to know somewhere in your mind this is true.

I think he's saying that if he checks the boxes physically, they need to suit him up.  The problem with that logic is that if he runs the risk of re-injuring it (or injured it worse), then you have to weight that into it as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Norm

Norm

Posted
Posted
Just now, CWood21 said:

I think he's saying that if he checks the boxes physically, they need to suit him up.  The problem with that logic is that if he runs the risk of re-injuring it (or injured it worse), then you have to weight that into it as well.

That's all I'm saying. It sounded like he used conservative with a mentioned last negative connotation while acknowledging Bulaga got hurried back but got hurt again. It was like he was saying we are screwing up by being safe then showing we weren't safe enough. Makes no sense unless you are a perpetual half empty guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CWood21

CWood21

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, NormSizedMidget said:

That's all I'm saying. It sounded like he used conservative with a mentioned last negative connotation while acknowledging Bulaga got hurried back but got hurt again. It was like he was saying we are screwing up by being safe then showing we weren't safe enough. Makes no sense unless you are a perpetual half empty guy.

I mean, it's a risk vs. reward thing.  Can we get away with a Pankey/McCray duo at tackle against the Bears?  Maybe.  Can we afford to risk losing Bakh to an extended period?  Probably not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
G08

G08

Posted
Posted

I think we've got a legit shot against ya'll. Sounds like you're down to your third string tackles? I expect Floyd, McPhee, and Young to hunt. Hicks and Goldman are loads on the LOS as well.

Rodgers does own us -- let's be honest -- but I like our chances if our corners can play their best ball.

I expect the Bears to control the ball on offense -- run heavy -- and sprinkle in some play-action shots to Wheaton/Thompson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...