Reading too much into things is usually a bad idea as well.
Lol. Looks like plain English to me. Maybe if you were trying to say something different, choosing the words you did was the bad idea.
Nah they were fine. Playing football is a risk no matter what. Playing fearing an injury is riskier. And since we were talking about a coaching decision to remove him i really was leaning toward fear based decisions usually are worse. Nothing more to read into that.
Last Edit: Nov 10, 2014 21:14:11 GMT -5 by Deleted
Reading too much into things is usually a bad idea as well.
Isn't that exactly what you did when you compared pulling Rodgers with out a 42 pt lead to playing afraid? I can understand you wanting to keep him in and get the record. But saying that what the Packers did is playing afraid seems to be a leap. IMO, there is no reason to keep him in at that point when your goal is a Super Bowl.
Reading too much into things is usually a bad idea as well.
Isn't that exactly what you did when you compared pulling Rodgers with out a 42 pt lead to playing afraid? I can understand you wanting to keep him in and get the record. But saying that what the Packers did is playing afraid seems to be a leap. IMO, there is no reason to keep him in at that point when your goal is a Super Bowl.
I don't see how. If you make a decision to not play someone for fear of injury you are playing/coaching afraid. Afraid of an injury. Pretty simple. Never said it was a bad decision but over the years I have seen where this thinking backfires and you never know when something is going to happen ie: Carson Palmer. My opinion is play him. Difference is I'm not picking out words to try and over blow what the other is saying.
You and rcb would bench him for fear of injury. Nothing wrong with that.
Isn't that exactly what you did when you compared pulling Rodgers with out a 42 pt lead to playing afraid? I can understand you wanting to keep him in and get the record. But saying that what the Packers did is playing afraid seems to be a leap. IMO, there is no reason to keep him in at that point when your goal is a Super Bowl.
I don't see how. If you make a decision to not play someone for fear of injury you are playing/coaching afraid. Afraid of an injury. Pretty simple. Never said it was a bad decision but over the years I have seen where this thinking backfires and you never know when something is going to happen ie: Carson Palmer. My opinion is play him. Difference is I'm not picking out words to try and over blow what the other is saying.
You and rcb would bench him for fear of injury. Nothing wrong with that.
I guess we are back to semantics. I don't think it's fear, I think it's wise. You don't keep your franchise player in a game with a 42 point lead. That's pretty typical at every level. I think you are doing exactly what you say you aren't in your last sentence, but that's just my opinion.
I was referring to the td's/game record in canton.
I know.
My point is that I severely doubt Rogers is worried about making it into Canton.
I fully agree but I'm not talking about Rodgers making it so your point is moot. The record won't be changed unless it is broken. You really don't think players want to break milestone records?
And another Super Bowl would add a whole lot more to his legacy than a TD record.
This is true and a player should take advantage of any opportunities that come along. Throwing 6 td's by halftime has rarely happened and likely will not happen again to Rodgers. I know I would go after both if it happened to me.
And another Super Bowl would add a whole lot more to his legacy than a TD record.
This is true and a player should take advantage of any opportunities that come along. Throwing 6 td's by halftime has rarely happened and likely will not happen again to Rodgers. I know I would go after both if it happened to me.
That approach puts individual accomplishment ahead of team.
