Should a player lose his job due to injury?

This comes up at least once every year in the NFL but it's been even more prominent of an issue this year with QB controversies in three cities(Pittsburgh, Jacksonville, and, mainly, Kansas City).

Personally, I think the whole notion that "you can't lose your job due to injury" seems a bit juvenile. This is pro football. In my mind, it all comes down to the now immortal words of Herman Edwards, "You play to win the game!". Whoever gives you the best chance to do that should be out there. Period.

[image=http://www.motivational-celebrity-speakers.com/players/kurtwarner.gif]

 

Sports has to be separate from personal feelings. Just like what we're talking about in the other thread, the definition of sports is some sort of physical activity. If a player cannot perform to that level, then yes, they're gone.

 

In general, no. But there are exceptions, when its really the other player just outperforming the injured one.

i.e., if a QB has a passer rating of 70, gets hurt, and his replacement steps in and over a good stretch of games has a rating of 90, I'd leave the replacement in there. But I don't really consider that "because of injury"

 

If the "replacement" is handling the job as well or even better, then a sense of fairness alone should not be enough to give the previous starter his job back. Maybe there's some other factors that play into the decision, but if the focus is on "win now", then go with the hot hand.

Also, could leaving in the "replacement" lead to a better league in the long run? The unproven player gets to build experience and confidence, and now the team has two starter-caliber players for one position. The near term advantage for the team is depth. But inevitably, the veteran riding the bench is going to find a starting job somewhere else if they deserve one. The long term advantage for the league is a better total product.

So, it seems to me, it works itself out in the long run and it's not unfair for the "replacement" to keep the job.

 

If you get injured and get outperformed by your backup, you deserve to lose your job.

 

Something else that factors in: If a guy like Peyton Manning or Tom Brady got hurt for a while, I don't think any performance from their replacement would be enough to keep them from reclaiming their spot. But then, they're not likely to be outplayed either. This could be expanded to any "franchise player" (whether in a sport that has such a tag or not)

Also, some sports/positions work better than others for this: in basketball, for example, you can balance the minutes and work the original player back in slowly, and go from there. Even other positions in football are the same way. Football teams just don't like changing QBs during a game.

 

If a player is injured (say a football player breaks his hand) and has to be out for the rest of the season but is able to come back in and do a good job, then if he is a good player, her should be allowed to be. If his replacement is better than he ever was, then probably not. Teams need to do what is best for that team rather than best for an individual player.

 

The Tom Brady Law gives a resounding yes answer to this question.

 

if it's a minor injury then yeah let him come back and let him heal for a bit. but if the player gets a permanent injury that affects the way they play in a negative way then they should be let go

 

It was the Kurt Warner law before it was the Tom Brady law.

and it was the Brett Favre law before it was the Kurt Warner law.

 

True, but Kurt Warner seemed to be a short term phenom and Favre needed quite a few years to get to the top.


Brady picked the Patriots up and took them to the Super Bowl that year and a couple times after that.


That's what legends are made of baby!

 

There's not a QB controversy in Pittsburgh. Maybe there should be, but there isn't. I think Ben's over the injuries now, but Cowher never went to Batch except for the times that Ben could truly not play and this was only for a total of a game and a half. Sorry, but I had to get that out.

But on topic, yes, a player absolutely should lose his job due to injury. If he's hurt, he can't play. Now, does this mean he shouldn't get his job back when he's healthy again? That's a different question. But as has been said, it all comes down to how well the "replacement" player has performed. If the back-up does that good, he shouldn't be a back-up anymore.

 

That's a tricky question. If it's a short term injury like a week to three or so weeks, then yes, the injured player should get their job back (like in Jacksonville - Del Rio was not respectful to either QB in this instance). However if, say in a situation like KC where the injury is more serious and the replacement has been performing just as good as the guy he replaced and has good chemistry with his team than it's a far more dicey situation, not one that I envy Herm having to decide. If you feel it's time for your injured player to come back and feel like it's not going to disrupte the team's momentum, then yes, give the guy his job back. On the other hand if you do get the sense that making a switch after such a protracted period of time would be detrimental to the team then let the replacement continue to helm the team and hold the injured player as the replacement should something happen to the guy that replaced him in the first place (Such as when Tom Brady went down in the playoffs prior to the Pats first Superbowl and Drew Bledsoe stepped in)

Like I said, it's a tough call and one I don't envy these coaches having to make it.

 

yeah... Favre isn't a legend.