Getting teams to play starters is exercise in futility
So now the NFL promises to look into the sticky issue of teams tanking late-season games by resting their starters. Good. That should satisfy an angry public. But that's all it should do. Fans demand that coaches play starters for all 16 games, the NFL commissioner says he will look into it and nothing will happen.
Because nothing can.
|
|
| Rex Ryan and the Jets benefited from the Colts and Bengals sitting starters. (Getty Images) |
Let's say I'm Jim Caldwell of the Indianapolis Colts, and I want to be rewarded for playing Peyton Manning every game. So I suit him up for his 16th start of the season. Only I play him a quarter ... or a half. Does that qualify me for trying?
Or let's say I play him four quarters but have him hand off to avoid injuries. Does that satisfy the league's mandate? Or, better yet, let's say I play him one series, then pull him because he suffered what I call a sore ankle. So it's an injury situation, or it's an injury situation because I say it is. Is that OK?
Now, let’s try another scenario: I play Peyton Manning, and he suffers a season-ending injury in the second half of the 16th game. That might satisfy the league office, but it screws the Colts for the playoffs. Is that what you really want? Of course not. It’s not what others want, either.
"I was aggravated when I heard what Roger had to say," one NFL general manager said. "He never has to worry about being fired, and nobody in that office [the NFL office] has to worry about being fired because they play or don’t play someone.
"Sometimes things work out this way because of the luck of the draw from the schedule. So do you want to start tinkering with the schedule? Listen, I never had any issue with somebody doing what he thinks is appropriate for his team because he knows how to run it. For the league to say [something like] this based on where people sit and what they know about teams is absolutely asinine."
The league is in a fix here because while it might want to do something it really can't. So it comes up with an imaginative idea that mollifies a public clamoring for something, anything, to take place, then lets it flounder and die because it knows what you and I do -- that it's powerless to tell coaches what to do.
But that's OK, because by trying, or seeming to try, it will satisfy fans who demand a response, or, as one coach put it, "a knee-jerk reaction."
The problem here is a fundamental one: The NFL cannot tell its coaches how to use their players and which ones to play. A year ago Philadelphia's Andy Reid sat down quarterback Donovan McNabb at halftime of a game the Eagles trailed 10-7, replacing him with an inexperienced backup, Kevin Kolb.
The game had all sorts of repercussions because it was between the Eagles and Baltimore Ravens, two teams that wound up in conference championship games, and Reid's decision all but guaranteed the Ravens an easy win. I didn't see anyone at 280 Park Ave. complaining, and I know why: It was a midseason game, and McNabb was benched because he stunk, and last time I checked a coach has that right to determine who plays and who does not.
Well, he still does, and I don't care if it's a midseason game or the last one of the year -- and if the league or fans or LaMarr Woodley doesn't like it, too bad. Caldwell and the Colts earned the right to sit their starters because they won more games than anyone else. Period.
If they didn't care about a 16-0 season that's their prerogative. Maybe their fans didn't appreciate it, but the Colts did what they believed was best for them, and they believe that sitting Manning in the second half of their 15th game will pay off.
So the Jets benefited. It happens. If you don't like it I have a solution that is simpler than what the commissioner is proposing: Win more games. I mean, here's the league telling us that it wants teams to play their starters through 16 regular-season games, which sounds good, but then here are the New England Patriots who follow that advice ... and lose Wes Welker for the season.
Great. By playing their starters the Patriots basically played themselves out of a Super Bowl. Suddenly, Indianapolis doesn't look so dumb after all.
The question, then, is a basic one: Which is more meaningful -- the regular season or the playoffs? There are no awards for finishing with the best regular-season record, but there is a Lombardi Trophy that goes to the team that survives the playoffs.
Once the Indianapolis Colts were guaranteed home-field advantage through the playoffs -- the reward for having the conference's best record -- they started maneuvering for the best position for the playoffs. So they sat their starters, hoping to minimize injuries for the healthy and maximizing rest for the injured, and, if you ask me, that sounds logical.
What I want to know now is how is the NFL going to stop that from continuing? My guess is that it's not because it can't. The league tells us that what it's doing is looking for a solution, but there is no solution.
So what it's really doing is grandstanding, and if you don't like that characterization let me pose one more question: Do you honestly think the NFL wants to get into the business of awarding more draft picks to the "haves" at the expense of the "have-nots," just because they suited up players for meaningless season finales? I think you can answer that one.
"If the league is able to write [legislation] forcing coaches to play their players I haven't seen it," said former coach Brian Billick, now a TV analyst.
Me neither. It seems to me that the greatest penalty for clubs tanking late-season games is not one the league can impose on offending teams but one that those teams impose on themselves. There is no proof that resting players increases your chances of advancing in the playoffs. On the contrary, the evidence points in the other direction.
The last time the Colts had home-field advantage they started sitting starters early and lost their only playoff game. That was 2005 when they won their first 13 starts. The following year it was San Diego, not Indianapolis, that had the AFC's best record. The Colts never were allowed to rest their starters, had to go on the road to beat Baltimore and won their first Super Bowl. Maybe there's a lesson there. This season will tell.
My point is the Colts did what they thought was necessary, and when they rested their starters they were not successful. When they didn't they were. The NFL didn't have to tell them what to do. They did what they thought was right, and they may have learned something in the process.
Worrying about the "integrity of the game" is one thing, but interjecting yourself into coaching decisions is another. The NFL should get out of the way and leave the coaching to the people who know that business the best -- the coaches.
