Official Week 10 Green Bay vs New York Giants Thread

rpiotr01 said:
Is it just me or does it seem like 3 different people are managing McManus' injury? Bizarre.
Click to expand...
I think to many times the team asks the player hey can you go? If the player says yes they let them play despite it being better they don't I think ML said this week they are going to let Van Ness make call if he can play on Sunday or not. You need a medical and coaching staff that will think of players long term health instead how fast they can get back on the field even if not close to 100%.
 
GBP4EVER said:
I think to many times the team asks the player hey can you go? If the player says yes they let them play despite it being better they don't I think ML said this week they are going to let Van Ness make call if he can play on Sunday or not. You need a medical and coaching staff that will think of players long term health instead how fast they can get back on the field even if not close to 100%.
Click to expand...
not disagreeing with you, gbp, just playing devil's advocate here: how many times have we comments about how the packers keeping players out for minor injuries and not letting the players play when they say they can? the coaches walk a fine line when it comes to injuries. there were people saying the packers should have put both mcmanus and van ness on ir, and there were others saying that they were ready to play.

medical science is not so precise as to know when it is okay to play, but good enough to say when it is definitely not okay to play. we saw it recently with watson. everyone agreed he was ready to play, but then he reinjures himself. thankfully it looks like he's cleared to play this week. but should he? mcmanus wasn't even listed on the injury report until his game status was listed as doubtful. and then you have malik heath, whose injury is listed as "coaches decision", and he's now listed as "out" for the game.

i think there's a lot that we don't know when it comes to these decisions.
 
realitybytes said:
not disagreeing with you, gbp, just playing devil's advocate here: how many times have we comments about how the packers keeping players out for minor injuries and not letting the players play when they say they can? the coaches walk a fine line when it comes to injuries. there were people saying the packers should have put both mcmanus and van ness on ir, and there were others saying that they were ready to play.

medical science is not so precise as to know when it is okay to play, but good enough to say when it is definitely not okay to play. we saw it recently with watson. everyone agreed he was ready to play, but then he reinjures himself. thankfully it looks like he's cleared to play this week. but should he? mcmanus wasn't even listed on the injury report until his game status was listed as doubtful. and then you have malik heath, whose injury is listed as "coaches decision", and he's now listed as "out" for the game.

i think there's a lot that we don't know when it comes to these decisions.
Click to expand...
But when you hear things like McManus saying he did not feel healthy until last week makes you question the medical staff allowing him out there. With LVN I think almost everyone knew that foot/ankle was not going to be a 1-2 week injury so even a short 4 week stint on IR would have made sense.

Watson I think that was everyone invovled rushing to get him on the field. Team felt they needed him to make a difference and Watson was in recovery mode saying hey I am a FA sooner I can get healthy the better for me to get on the field. Sense then GB has paid Watson a 1 year deal but it's safe to say Watson could have probably used a few more weeks to ramp up his conditioning to be able to play.
 
rpiotr01 said:
It should not be this complicated, he's a g*damn place kicker and there is a guy on the roster who is healthy. Should've sat McManus 3 weeks ago and he'd be healthier by now. There was less hemming and hawing about Love when his knee was busted last year!
Click to expand...
i could not agree with you more, rp. i think that was a clear case of rushing a guy back too soon. how many kicks has he missed? and how many losses could have been wins if he hits those kicks, and how many other times might we have tried a field goal instead of turning the ball over on downs or punting when we were within havrisik's range? i just don't get it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top