Aaron Rodgers Back to the IR.

[MacReady]

2 hours ago, JustAnotherFan said:

Also, fans say this type of crap all the time -"I'm done with the NFL" - and they're back to watching the very next game and so would you.

Lol.  You think I'd watch another NFL game if the NFL forced the Packers to cut the most talented QB in NFL history over an "infraction" that has literally dozens of loopholes to explain it wasn't an infraction at all (Rodgers got bruised, they didn't disclose a new injury, he sprained an ankle...)? 

Please.  Drop it.  For both our sakes. 

[incognito_man]

25 minutes ago, YogiBiz said:

So they can't say he re-injured his collarbone and be done with this mess? And before anyone says that's how the rules work. Yes it is. For them to say that his collarbone isn't re-injured they would have to have a different opinion. And Collarbone injuries are easy to aggravate, especially to when throwing a football 30+ times. 

 

Haters gonna hate

Yep, and he landed on it again hard too. Easy to point to. Complete non-story, non-issue here. Millennials are just suckers for invented drama.

[malak1]

2 hours ago, Pugger said:

Nothing would surprise me these days.  With our luck we'll have to give up Rodgers, get fined and/or lose multiple draft picks and become bottom feeders once again.  

“With our luck”

 

lol, you guys have had a quarter century of HOF QB play. 30 other teams would kill for your “luck.”

[ET80]

John Elway is prepping his 3/$150mm contract for Rodgers. Just in case.

[ET80]

Or imagine if Rodgers is released tomorrow and signed by Jacksonville for a one year deal for the playoffs...sheesh, hahahaha...

[CWood21]

4 hours ago, JustAnotherFan said:

The Packers should be forced to place Rodgers on waivers AND be docked a draft pick or two.

Your attempt at trolling is bad and you should feel bad about it.  There's literally ZERO chance that the NFL can walk away with any credibility if they release Rodgers AND dock the Packers a draft pick.  Worst case scenario, they fine them.

[CWood21]

4 hours ago, JustAnotherFan said:

By rule, in order to place Rodgers(or any player) on IR, that player must have suffered a new injury that would keep him out for at least 6 weeks. If that player did NOT suffer a new injury that would sideline him for at least 6 weeks (which Rodgers did appear to fall into this category) and the team places that player on IR anyhow, by rule, the team must release said player after his injury is healed.

There's a reason why the ruling is so ambiguous.  He was medically cleared by the Packers medical staff prior to the Panthers game.  He was ruled medically ineligible AFTER the Panthers game.  The reason the rule in in place is so teams don't trot out medically uncleared players.  Not to try and void contracts.

[GSUeagles14]

7 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

There's a reason why the ruling is so ambiguous.  He was medically cleared by the Packers medical staff prior to the Panthers game.  He was ruled medically ineligible AFTER the Panthers game.  The reason the rule in in place is so teams don't trot out medically uncleared players.  Not to try and void contracts.

it does call into question gbs medical staff if this ks true. awfully convienant that he was cleared and then when he had nothing to play for he couldnt pass?

[CWood21]

6 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said:

it does call into question gbs medical staff if this ks true. awfully convienant that he was cleared and then when he had nothing to play for he couldnt pass?

That's a stretch at best.  You can be medically cleared to play, but not playing where you should be.  We see it no different than when players play with sprains.  You may be medically cleared to play, but you don't have that same explosiveness or cutting ability.  And often you don't know where you're until after you take a few hits.  The X-ray machine may show that the bone has completely healed, but the muscles around the bone haven't recovered.

[GSUeagles14]

37 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

That's a stretch at best.  You can be medically cleared to play, but not playing where you should be.  We see it no different than when players play with sprains.  You may be medically cleared to play, but you don't have that same explosiveness or cutting ability.  And often you don't know where you're until after you take a few hits.  The X-ray machine may show that the bone has completely healed, but the muscles around the bone haven't recovered.

that doesnt really make sense. medical staff shouldnt be making decisions on explosiveness and theres mris that will show any muscle damage. which its extremely unlikely that there would be signifant damage around the collarbone. this just looks really bad for gb. especially after the bennet thing.

[CWood21]

1 minute ago, GSUeagles14 said:

that doesnt really make sense. medical staff shouldnt be making decisions on explosiveness and theres mris that will show any muscle damage. which its extremely unlikely that there would be signifant damage around the collarbone. this just looks really bad for gb. especially after the bennet thing.

It does though.  You can be medically cleared to play.  You might not be in NFL-shape to play and risk further injury.  That's the difference.  You may not have muscle damage, but your muscles aren't up to strength.  McCarthy even said that Rodgers was sore after the Panthers game, and I believe in the ESPN article it said that Rodgers wouldn't have been cleared to play in the Vikings game even if he was healthy.  It's a non-starter.

[Stevein2012]

26 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said:

that doesnt really make sense. medical staff shouldnt be making decisions on explosiveness and theres mris that will show any muscle damage. which its extremely unlikely that there would be signifant damage around the collarbone. this just looks really bad for gb. especially after the bennet thing.

What does Bennett have to do with it?  They cleared him to play and then were even backed up by another teams medical staff.  That sounds like they made the right call

[CWood21]

2 minutes ago, Stevein2012 said:

What does Bennett have to do with it?  They cleared him to play and then were even backed up by another teams medical staff.  That sounds like they made the right call

Absolutely nothing.  He's just still hung on being wrong about the Bennett situation.

[incognito_man]

People still don't seem to realize a player being 'cleared' is not the doc's decision. It's a franchise + player decision. The MDs opinion is just one voice in the conversation.

There is nuance involved, as much as GSU wants things to be so simple and easy to understand, theresore than one layer.

[Norm]

2 hours ago, GSUeagles14 said:

that doesnt really make sense. medical staff shouldnt be making decisions on explosiveness and theres mris that will show any muscle damage. which its extremely unlikely that there would be signifant damage around the collarbone. this just looks really bad for gb. especially after the bennet thing.

Your obsession with this franchise man...