He's been putting young guys on the field all season.VikingLord wrote:What's the goal for each team each year? It's to win the Superbowl, isn't it?
Once a team is out of contention for that goal, what good does it do them to expend prime resources to win meaningless games? It might be good for individuals like the coach and maybe the GM, but what good does that do to move the team in the direction they want to go?
You could say "it builds momentum", but does it? In the modern NFL? In the NFL where a team can be vastly different from one season to the next, and where most teams are lucky if they can hold a core group of a few key players together over a few years? The team the Vikings just played won the Superbowl and then proceeded to lose 9 key players in a single offseason. This modern version of the NFL isn't the one I grew up watching. It's the NFL of the here-and-now, where to have a realistic shot at that ring a team needs to fill a few key spots and get competent play from the rest. It's the NFL where a Green Bay Packers team can lose a single key player and go from a Superbowl competitor to a team as bad as the Vikings.
So no, I don't buy into the romantic idea that this is a league of one-for-all, all-for-one anymore. I buy into the reality that each season is about one thing and that is winning the Superbowl, and if a team can no longer do that in *this* particular season, then it needs to play to put itself into the best possible position to do it in the *next* season.
And as far as "tanking" games goes, I'm not saying a team should play to lose per se. What I am saying is that a coach and GM should get their younger players on the field. Get them experience. Let them make mistakes. Heck, who knows, some of those younger guys might actually make some plays (witness, for example, the play of Audie Cole at MLB, Rhodes at CB, and Patterson at WR). Heck, they might even be better than the guys they replaced and the team could in theory win a few, but at least those wins would have the *context* of the future. They would show what the team, and fans, can look forward to in the following season. Those types of wins would possess some substance of meaning. I'm also saying reduce the workloads of your core players who are key to your chances next season. Showcase the skills of the players who are likely to leave via FA or who you can maximize their future value to your team via tenders or trades. Basically, let the games that can no longer help you get to the Superbowl at least have some value to the team for the following season.
Anyway, to each his own, but I'm not getting younger and this team is in dire, dire need of quality QB play if they are likely to enter any of the upcoming seasons as Superbowl contenders. Nobody can argue the point that drafting high is no guaranteed solution to the problem of finding a quality QB, but it does provide one key thing and that is choice. You draft at #12 and you need a QB, you might be driven to gamble. You draft at #1, and you get the pick of the litter. It does make a difference.
There is nothing depressing about this. It's cold, hard reality, and there is no point in railing against it. In fact, I'd argue that the truly depressing thing here is staying stuck on a romantic notion of an NFL long gone, which in turn leads those in charge to act against their own interests.
At least Frazier is finally putting his younger guys on the field, and they are showing some of what they can do. At least we have that going for us...
That was an eloquent response but it still sounds like you're talking about treating regular season games like they're preseason games and playing for draft position.
I'm not blind to the realities of today's NFL but you seem to be looking at in some abstract sense, as if it were a video or strategy game and not a game that involves real, professional people. Defaulting to younger players once the team is out of contention and treating games like it's the preseason is a great way to insure you'll never be successful, especially if "out of contention' doesn't even mean 'mathematically eliminated". Playing to win builds credibility and respect on the team and whether momentum can be carried from one season to the next or not, there can certainly be value in letting starters play together, develop chemistry with one another and hopefully grow as a team. That's a good way to put yourself in position to win the following season. I would think veterans worth having on a team that took the approach you're advocating would be eager to go elsewhere as soon as possible because the lack of integrity in such an approach would undoubtedly rub some of them the wrong way. It would certainly be difficult to retain respect for a head coach that was more concerned about draft position and tryouts for untested players than winning. Pro players put their bodies and livelihoods on the line every week. Why would they want to do that for a coach and team that didn't give a crap about winning the games they're playing and was instead, more concerned about the unproven young player they might be able to draft next spring? How do you think a player like Kevin Williams would feel about that?
There are a lot of ways to let "meaningless" games have meaning for a team but I'd argue the best way is to treat them like they mean something because for any player worth having on the team, they should and probably do mean something. Approaching it any other way sends the wrong message.
That's just my take and maybe it's romantic to think the integrity of the game still means something but I don't think so.
