Read the debate intro, Sports Geek’s argument and Loyal Homer’s argument about which is the easier obstacle for a team in the NFL to overcome, a week one injury to the star player, or the slow decline in performance by the team’s veteran leader.
Which brand of life’s lemons is easier to make lemonade from?
It is difficult to gauge which is the worst of two different situations, because each presents a unique set of complications that must be addressed. In the case of this debate, the choice was to discuss which is the lesser of two evils – to lose your star player to injury, or to deal with the decline if performance of a once-productive veteran.
When a player is lost to injury, the coach’s “choice” of whom to play is already made for them. Thanks to the injury that was sustained, the coach is forced to look towards the backup player, who is expected to step in and fill the hole vacated. This may help eliminate some second-guessing on the part of the head coach, but the level of talent that is placed on the field is markedly less than before the injury took place.
As Sports Geek points out, coaches prefer black-and-white issues. When a coach has to decide how to utilize a now less-reliable veteran, it creates many complicated questions that can be difficult to answer. With those questions comes scrutiny and the potential for conflict within the organization, especially if the coach is perceived to have made the wrong choice.
Loyal Homer brings up the fact, though, that the sudden loss of a star player creates problems because a team must redesign their entire gameplan to accommodate that loss. Using Loyal Homer’s example of Brian Urlacher, the Chicago Bears had built their defensive gameplan around the expectation that Urlacher would be on the field. Urlacher, as noted by Sports Geek, has been one of the best defensive players in the NFL for nearly a decade. When Urlacher went out with a wrist injury during week one of the season, Bears head coach Lovie Smith was forced to redesign his entire strategy at a moment’s notice to compensate.
Both Sports Geek and Loyal Homer made very strong arguments, but I am awarding this verdict to Loyal Homer.
There were key example raised by Loyal Homer that ultimately won the debate was regarding the San Diego Chargers. Since 2001, the Chargers offensive gameplan has been simple – feature running back LaDainian Tomlinson and force the opposing defenses to stop him. Tomlinson was such a powerful presence on offense that he single-handedly carried the Chargers to FOUR AFC West Division Championships. During that same time, the Chargers only had two losing seasons, in 2001 (Tomlinson’s rookie year) and 2003.
2008, as mentioned by Loyal Homer, was a different type of season for the Chargers, though. As Tomlinson’s performance began to decline, the Chargers were forced to look to the other players on their team, such as quarterback Philip Rivers, tight end Antonio Gates, and backup running back Darren Sproles, to help pick up the slack. The reason that the Chargers have been successful in doing this is because they had time to prepare and develop their players. A smart coach doesn’t “put all his eggs in one basket”. Instead, he relies very heavily on the stars of today while planning for and developing the stars of tomorrow. In the case where a star player is injured while in his prime, the coach doesn’t have the luxury of that preparation. Instead, the coach must start a player who may not yet be fully prepared for full-time competition in the NFL.
When you consider the example that Sports Geek raised about the New England Patriots, who still managed to win 11 games without quarterback Tom Brady, you cannot ignore the fact that they still missed the playoffs, which Loyal Homer pointed out. If Brady were healthy and could have earned the Patriots just ONE more win, they would have reached the postseason. They did not reach the playoffs, though, essentially making their 11-5 record worth the exact same value as the Detroit Lions’ 0-16 record. At the end of the year, neither team won enough games to extend their season, so both failed in what they had tried to accomplish.
Neither is an ideal situation. What makes the injury to a star player a more damaging loss is simply the fact that there is no planning or preparation for it. A good coach with the foresight to read the writing on the wall can plan for the eventual phasing out of a star player whose time is simply running out in the NFL, and can begin to phase in the next generation of star talent.
Posted by Bleacher Fan 
