At what point should we jump on the tank?

[PkrsBcksGphsMqt]

We are currently 5-4. The Lions are 6-3. The Bears are 5-4. At the moment SF and Carolina have to be the heavy favorites to win the two wild card playoff slots.

Our remaining schedule looks like this:
@NYG
MIN
@DET
ATL
@DAL
PIT
@CHI

Rodgers is projected to be back against Detroit at the earliest. So my question is how many more losses until you throw in the towel and jump on the tank in hopes of a decent draft pick?

I'm personally very close to throwing in the towel. If we don't win this week, I don't think we'll have a very good shot at making the playoffs, especially if Rodgers doesn't make it back for the Detroit game.

[Kerb Hohl]

I don't really know how tanking here applies much. If you ask me in hindsight after the season, of course I'd love to see Thompson drafting 12th in every round instead of 18th (barely missing the playoffs).

That said, I don't know how you "tank" and if the cost/benefit is there. If Clay is healthy, Rodgers' collarbone is healed, Cobb is fully healed...I'm not sure why/how you'd sit them. Maybe we're 5-6 when Rodgers comes back. I don't think I'd "tank" in the NFL. I'd roll the dice that Rodgers can go 5-0 and see what happens. Even if we're 5-8, I don't see how an NFL franchise would tank with arguably the best player in the NFL on their roster. You have to play him.

If we were the Vikings, yes, I'd be going broke for 2-14 to get a franchise QB.

In terms of my own fandom and "throwing in the towel," I lowered my expectations to zero when Rodgers went out. I was almost unfazed by the Philly game. The only thing that annoys me is that I don't think we are this bad of a team without Rodgers, but I threw in the towel on the playoffs around when we were getting rumors of a multiple week injury in the latter half of the Bears game. Can we/should we be able to win 1 or 2 without him and get in as the 6 seed or beat up Detroit and get the division? Yeah, that's definitely possible. I just threw any expectations out the window then. Much less heartbreaking to expect Scott Tolzien to keep the ship moving.

[PkrsBcksGphsMqt]

I just wouldn't rush Rodgers back and would avoid putting anyone out there that isn't 100% (ie Clay with a club). I'd also look to get snaps for Sherrod and some other players that we don't know much about so we can evaluate our situation a little better int he off season.

[humanrefutation]

I think if we lose the next three games and fall to 5-7, then I'm fine with tanking. I don't think that'll happen, though. Our team is too good to tank down the drain and go 5-11 or 6-10, especially if Rodgers is playing.

If you look at the draft list from last year, 5 wins got you in the top 7, 6 got you in the top 10, and then 7 wins got you in the top 15. We'd have a lot of sucking to do in order to drop far enough that it would make a difference.

But hey, if we ain't making the playoffs, tanking is the only reasonable option.

[Kerb Hohl]

I just wouldn't rush Rodgers back and would avoid putting anyone out there that isn't 100% (ie Clay with a club). I'd also look to get snaps for Sherrod and some other players that we don't know much about so we can evaluate our situation a little better int he off season.

I guess my thought is if Rodgers can play, he's going to be pretty healthy. I kinda get the idea of giving him an extra game and I guess we'll know more when he's really in the window of coming back but my guess is that we're talking about a one week thing here of "rushing him back" that doesn't make a huge difference.

If Rodgers has clearance to play that it won't cause long-term harm and Clay does as well, they are playing barring pain threshold. Clay is already out there because for the most part he is done with the long-term injury risk. I'm imagining that Rodgers gets to that point in 2-3 weeks. I just don't see some sort of thing where we can hold Rodgers out for 5 extra games or something.

[Aaron It Out]

SMH. Tank shouldn't even be in the vocabulary on this side of town.

[LikeABosh]

SMH. Tank shouldn't even be in the vocabulary on this side of town.

Absolutely. Going from 5-2 with a division lead to losing 12 games in a row? I want none of that

[trwi7]

I would say we need to be within a game of the wildcard/division when Rodgers comes back. 49ers still have the Saints and Seahawks left on the schedule with some possibly tough games @ Washington and @ Arizona and the Panthers still have the Patriots this week and two games against the Saints.

The problem is the only team we have the tiebreaker on right now is Detroit, so it's an uphill battle for the wildcard at this point.

[ReasonablySober]

I'm not interested in bailing on the season until they're mathematically eliminated from the playoffs.

[paulpressey25]

There just isn't any huge advantage to tanking in the NFL. Drafting in the late first round for a great GM produces Aaron Rodgers while a crappy GM will whiff on top ten picks all the time. The talent differentials just aren't that great, with the exception that if you have a #1 or #2 overall, you'd have a better shot at getting a franchise QB, but even with that, Tim Couch says hello as he watches sixth round pick Tom Brady on television.

The only thing I would do is sit Rodgers if for some reason the doctors said it would be better out of caution for his long-term career and the team was pretty much out of it record wise.

[zmanishere11]

Jesus, really? I understand we're all united on the Bucks board for this, but please, leave it there.

For as long as GB has Aaron Rodgers, there is no tanking.

[humanrefutation]

I think there is a difference between the Bucks and Packers. Bucks fans are calling for a tank without even attempting a playoff run, simply because of the top heavy, star-driven nature in the league, and the notion that the only realistic way to acquire superstar talent is through the draft.

This situation is less about tanking because it's the only way to improve your roster in the long run, and more about the idea that having a higher draft pick is always a good thing. If we're out of it, why not tank? What's there to gain by finishing 8-8?

[Asher]

i'm with aaron it out. i don't see it. a high pick would be great, but the last 20+ years of this organization's success and coach mccarthy's and rodgers' demeanor rule it out. this team may take a dip when rodgers eventually retires, and then i could see it, but not now. they'll play for pride even if mathematically eliminated.

[jakecronus8]

After you're eliminated from the playoffs you start evaluating for next season.

[Ayt]

I'm not interested in bailing on the season until they're mathematically eliminated from the playoffs.

I agree. Tanking doesn't really apply in the NFL like it does in the NBA.

[whatthe_buck!?]

Its the NFL, its always possible some crazy as* sh*t will go down and 9-7 will win the division. And once you're in u have at least a 1 or 2% shot at a ring no matter how terrible ur squad is in relation to the other playoff teams (and usually the odds for even a 6th seed to win the owl are significantly higher than that). If we have to white-knuckle this b*tch all the way into the playoffs I'm down. When we're out we're out but even during that 4-12 season that was Arods first and Sherman's last I was literally looking at the schedule trying to figure out paths to the playoffs well into the second half of that season. Unless ur team needs a franchise QB, NFL fans as a rule should always be ride-or-die to the end (the end being playoff elimination) every last season.

[Godgers]

10-6 wins the division if we beat the Lions and Bears.

I have no doubt that we can win out when Rodgers comes back like the 2010 season. So if we can get Rodger back before we have 7 loses our season is not over. Need him back by the Lion game. Have to pick up one win without him.

[Newz]

Tanking in the NFL is stupid unless there is a guy like Luck or Manning (guys considered can't miss QBs) at the top of the draft and your team is devoid of a legit QB, IMO. I'd advocate that if the Packers were really, really bad when Rodgers left I suppose.

With a good GM like Thompson, there just isn't a huge deal between us having something like the 8th-10th pick and us having the 16th pick or whatever the case may be. I'd say the odds of us landing an impact player are about the same at either spot. Obviously it's better in theory to have the earlier pick... but that isn't really how the NFL draft works.

I'd say the main reason I'd rather have the earlier pick is for trading back purposes.

Even when you need a QB though it seems like those guys come from all over the draft.

[SpursNBucks]

Until Rodgers gets back they will be in unintentional tank mode, but in the North division even with this loss they are still right there. Even Tolzien can probably get you through MN. Detroit self-destructs, Chicago is probably in the best situation and may be the front runner until Rodgers is back.

I don't know if tanking really works in the NFL unless you have an Andrew Luck, Manning, Elway, etc in the Draft as a clear #1 and you are going to suck anyways. I will never forget the Packers in 1989 - The last game they won and they ended up with the #2 Mandarich.

In this situation it makes no sense.

[th87]

No reason to tank yet.

But draft position is the difference between a Revis and a Harrell.