Zero2Cool
15 years ago

(Could you talk about your decision to keep Raji out again and what his prospects are?)
I just sat down with B.J. Saturday and talked to him about it. He doesn't have a full gait back. He's not running without a limp. He feels good. He just has to get over that last hurdle, and that comes down to strength. We just didn't feel he was 100 percent, and I didn't think it was smart to expose him when he's not 100 percent. Everybody is excited to see him play, he's excited to get out there and play, but at the end of the day, there's 16 games in the regular season. I did not want to put him out there until he's 100 percent.




Not many, but a few were blasting the staff for not activating Raji when we need DL help. Again, sounds like Raji was not 100%. He had soreness and also from this quote has a limp while running.

Raji being inactive, the right call.
UserPostedImage
mi_keys
15 years ago
If it's something where the staff feels there is a higher than normal chance of re-injury and letting this become a nagging problem all year then absolutely that is the right call to leave him out. Hopefully, we'll see him next week.
Born and bred a cheesehead
gbguy20
15 years ago
thread title is slightly misleading, im glad YOU weren't saying mccarthy was stupid for sitting him, zero.
BAD EMAIL because the address couldn ot be found, or is unable to receive mail.
Yerko
15 years ago
I'd rather see a 100% Raji beasting through an o-line than have our rookie "star" get re-injured. Here's to hoping he is 100% for the Rams so I can see him BEAST live!
UserPostedImage
PackerTraxx
15 years ago
I would consider sitting him for the Rams. We should not need him. I want him healthy for the Queens, we will need him.
Why is Jerry Kramer not in the Hall of Fame?
bozz_2006
15 years ago
I am still not so sure it was the right call. I wonder how many guys who played this week were 100% healthy? Probably not that many, IMO.
UserPostedImage
Rockmolder
15 years ago

(Could you talk about your decision to keep Raji out again and what his prospects are?)
I just sat down with B.J. Saturday and talked to him about it. He doesn't have a full gait back. He's not running without a limp. He feels good. He just has to get over that last hurdle, and that comes down to strength. We just didn't feel he was 100 percent, and I didn't think it was smart to expose him when he's not 100 percent. Everybody is excited to see him play, he's excited to get out there and play, but at the end of the day, there's 16 games in the regular season. I did not want to put him out there until he's 100 percent.

"oskarliminga" wrote:




Not many, but a few were blasting the staff for not activating Raji when we need DL help. Again, sounds like Raji was not 100%. He had soreness and also from this quote has a limp while running.

Raji being inactive, the right call.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



I disagree Zero, though admittedly from the benefit of hindsight. I questioned this yesterday and you seemed to agree with me then.

We got beat basically by a mid-level back, and Raji told Mike he was ready to go prior to the game. Mike overruled him. I could argue that if Raji were in there he would have made the difference in stopping Benson, but that still remains to be seen.

I still think that Ted fucked up the draft pick, but this also remains to be seen. All I know is that the 9 pick wasn't out there when he was needed, and that after he told his coach that he was ready.

This team has many evident problems, and most of them are not on the playing field.



Hindsight is indeed a big part of this. No one actually thought that we'd need Raji out there. There was absolutely no reason to start him if he was still injured.

There's a good 330 lbs on those two feet. That's not something you want to play around with. Especially not after what happend to our previous 1st round DT.

I still think that it was the right decision. Both for this game and in the draft. Had Monroe fallen, I would've gone with him, but I can not see who you would've prefered at that point otherwise....
PackFanWithTwins
15 years ago
I don't think Raji would have done better than the players that did play. What do we want out of the Dline? We want them to take up blockers so the LBers can make plays. Problem was that the LBers were not making them this week.

Save him til healthy IMO.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
Zero2Cool
15 years ago

(Could you talk about your decision to keep Raji out again and what his prospects are?)
I just sat down with B.J. Saturday and talked to him about it. He doesn't have a full gait back. He's not running without a limp. He feels good. He just has to get over that last hurdle, and that comes down to strength. We just didn't feel he was 100 percent, and I didn't think it was smart to expose him when he's not 100 percent. Everybody is excited to see him play, he's excited to get out there and play, but at the end of the day, there's 16 games in the regular season. I did not want to put him out there until he's 100 percent.

"oskarliminga" wrote:




Not many, but a few were blasting the staff for not activating Raji when we need DL help. Again, sounds like Raji was not 100%. He had soreness and also from this quote has a limp while running.

Raji being inactive, the right call.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



I disagree Zero, though admittedly from the benefit of hindsight. I questioned this yesterday and you seemed to agree with me then.

We got beat basically by a mid-level back, and Raji told Mike he was ready to go prior to the game. Mike overruled him. I could argue that if Raji were in there he would have made the difference in stopping Benson, but that still remains to be seen.

I still think that Ted fucked up the draft pick, but this also remains to be seen. All I know is that the 9 pick wasn't out there when he was needed, and that after he told his coach that he was ready.

This team has many evident problems, and most of them are not on the playing field.



If it was JUST soreness and he wouldn't further the injury, yes, play his ass.
But finding out he was limping? C'mon a large man limping isn't going to help us much, lol.
UserPostedImage
Tezzy
15 years ago
I was greatly disappointed about the inactive status until I heard the reports about limping. Then it made much more sense. And if the Pack had won it wouldn't even be questioned. Can't wait to see this kid bring some steak sauce to the field and start chowing down.
On top of every beard grows a man.
"The Bears are shell-shocked... and it's breaking my heart."
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (20m) : I see what you did there Mucky
Zero2Cool (21m) : dammit. 3:25pm
Zero2Cool (21m) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
Mucky Tundra (28m) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
Mucky Tundra (29m) : Yeah baby!
Zero2Cool (50m) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah
Zero2Cool (2h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (2h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
Zero2Cool (2h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
Zero2Cool (2h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
packerfanoutwest (3h) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (3h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Zero2Cool (3h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
beast (3h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
beast (3h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
Zero2Cool (3h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
beast (3h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
beast (3h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality
beast (3h) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs
Zero2Cool (3h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread
Zero2Cool (3h) : I literally just said it.
packerfanoutwest (3h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't
Zero2Cool (3h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.
Zero2Cool (3h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.
packerfanoutwest (3h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what
Zero2Cool (3h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.
packerfanoutwest (3h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in
packerfanoutwest (3h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker
packerfanoutwest (3h) : if bucs win out they win their division
beast (3h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us
packerfanoutwest (4h) : falcons are already ahead of us
beast (4h) : Packers will get in
beast (4h) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen
packerfanoutwest (4h) : they still are in the playoffs
packerfanoutwest (4h) : If Packers lose the remaining games,,,,at 10-7
Zero2Cool (5h) : We can say it. We don't play.
Mucky Tundra (7h) : But to say they are in is looking past the Saints
Mucky Tundra (7h) : That said, their odds are very favorable with a >99% chance of making the playoffs entering this week's games
Mucky Tundra (7h) : Packers are not in and have not clinched a playoff spot.
buckeyepackfan (7h) : Packers are in, they need to keep winning to improve their seed#.
Mucky Tundra (16h) : Getting help would have been nice, but helping ourselves should always be the plan
beast (17h) : Too bad Seahawks couldn't beat Vikings
bboystyle (17h) : We just need to win Monday night and were in
Mucky Tundra (20h) : Or ties, but let's be real here
Mucky Tundra (20h) : Other scenario was Falcons+Rams losses
Mucky Tundra (20h) : Needed a Falcons loss for a Seahawk loss to clinch
buckeyepackfan (20h) : Am I wring in saying if Tge Vikings beat The Seahawks, The Packers clinch?
Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : Agreed; you stinks
Zero2Cool (21-Dec) : I'm not beating anyone. I stinks.
Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : rough injury for tank dell. guy can't catch abreak
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

2h / Random Babble / Martha Careful

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

19-Dec / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

18-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

17-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Mucky Tundra

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.