I’ve been thinking about this ever since the Vikings started pursuing Brett Favre. Okay, we know there’s some concern about Favre wearing down late in the season. The Vikings are monitoring how many throws he makes in practice. Brad Childress is talking about getting him some rest during the season. He’s got that tear in the rotator cuff and he’s talked about maybe having a cracked rib. The regular season hasn’t even started. There is a decent chance Favre might not be able to play all 16 games, and even if he does, he might be so beat up doing so that we could witness a repeat of last year’s debacle with the Jets.
So here’s a wacky idea. How about Brad Childress just tells Favre he’s going to limit the games Favre plays in during the regular season – regardless of how the ole’ gunslinger’s body feels or what he says?
Seems to me if the Vikings are so worried about Favre, who will be 40 in October, being fresh and healthy late in the season, then maybe he should only play in, say, 12 regular season games instead of 16. Brett’s already said he’s all about winning, right? So he should have no problem sitting out some games for the ultimate good of the team. And what’s good for the team is having Favre in almost as good shape in January as he is now.
And the Vikings have two pretty good backup quarterbacks on the roster already in Sage Rosenfels and Tarvaris Jackson that can help make this work. They’ve had their moments when asked to start in this league. They’ve helped their teams win some games. So the drop off from Favre to them isn’t that great at this stage in his career as it was five or 10 years ago. This strategy gives Favre’s old body needed rest and it keeps your two other QBs game-ready in case Favre gets seriously hurt and you need them to play for an extended period.
You could also potentially cherry pick the games Favre sits out. I mean, do you really want Favre playing against Pittsburgh on Oct. 25 when the weather could be bad in Pittsburgh, against a hard-hitting, hard blitzing defence one week after playing a hard-hitting, hard blitzing Ravens defence? Save some wear and tear on Favre. Stick Jackson or Rosenfels in there and see what happens.
There are probably three or four games this season – if the Vikings play up to their potential – that Brad Childress could sit Favre for and still not cost the Vikings a divisional title, a first round bye and home field advantage. And once the playoffs start, three or four less games played and several dozen less hits taken should give Childress a healthier Favre, a Favre whose body feels good, whose arm feels good and who is ready to roll come playoff time.
Of course, it will never happen. Favre would never voluntarily sit out games (there are more records to break and a legacy to build upon) and Childress wouldn’t ask his buddy to do it anyway. It would also be such an unconventional, risky move – one that might cost him his job if it doesn’t work – that Chilly would never consider it.
But just because it’s a wacky idea doesn’t mean it's devoid of merit.
So this is progress?
I agree with Childress’ decision to keep both Jackson and Rosenfels on the roster (so far) to backup Favre. But now Chilly isn’t saying who the backup is going to be and that it might change week-to-week.
Do you suppose Sage Rosenfels wishes he was back in Houston now? Here is a player who knew he wasn’t going to start in Houston because Matt Schaub was Gary Kubiak’s guy. He also knew that Minnesota was a good football team with a bad quarterback situation that had tried to acquire him previously. So he lobbies to get traded here and it happens. He’s happy. He figures all he has to do to get that starting job is beat out Tarvaris Jackson – who isn’t very good. It should be a slam dunk.
But then the Favre-to-Minnesota rumors start. Then the Vikes finally sign Favre. There goes the starting job. Then Rosenfels hurts his ankle and can’t play in the second preseason game against Kansas City while Jackson plays very well. And now after thinking he could finally be a starter in this league with a playoff-ready team like the Vikings, he learns he might be the team’s third quarterback on some Sundays.
In Houston, he was a backup, but a backup for a guy who misses a lot of games. There was a good chance he'd get to play at some point this season. With the Vikings, there's now a good chance he'll be inactive on gamedays. I feel for him a bit.
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I like that idea. I was thinking something somewhat similar, but something I think Favre might like better: let Favre start all 16 games, but pull him whenever the Vikings have a comfortable lead. With their schedule and the team they have on paper, there's potential for Favre to miss several 4th quarters and a handful of 3rd quarters. Of course, this will never happen either, but I think it's a decent idea. Let Rosey or Jackson finish teams off.
I feel bad for ol' Sage, but he seems to be handling the situation admirably. I hope he finds himself a starting gig somewhere before his time passes. Perhaps it will be for the post-Favre Vikings.
I was thinking about that, too... I've never been a huge fan of Sage, but it is too bad that he went from being #2 guy who will see playing time, to potential #1 guy, to potential #3 guy.
But in the end I'm glad they kept him. You just never know what will happen in the NFL with injuries. Favre has never missed a game, and I don't think he will this year... but again, you never know.
Jason - http://www.TheVikingShip.net
I just read Peter's comment, and I really like that idea. For one, it keeps Favre fresher, and two, it gives Sage or TJack some good experience, since the chances are good that one of them will be starting next year anyway.
Jason - http://www.TheVikingShip.net
Peter:
As we both realize, there's no way Favre is giving up any snaps unless it's an absolute blowout. I think the problem with your idea is that it's rare in the NFL when a team, especially the Vikings, has a comfortable lead. Is a 14 points or 17 point lead going into the fourth quarter comfortable? My bet is most coaches would say no. So I don't think there will be many opportunities to rest Favre, unless the Vikings totally kick ass this season, which I hope they do.
That is a crazy idea. Although I see what you're getting at.
It would never happen for these reasons:
1. The Vikings want to win as many games as they can, and they won't have the luxury of giving games away. If Favre remains the best option at QB, you have to start him. Playoff seeding and homefield advantage will be at stake in the best case scenario. Making the playoffs at all isn't a slam dunk either.
2. Fans would revolt. They paid good money for tickets to watch Brett Favre, and they better see him, darnit.
3. The "resting your players gets them rusty" theory. Even if you have homefield advantage clinched, this move has been heavily criticized in the past after first round playoff losses.
4. The consecutive starts streak. You know it means a lot to the old man, and he will do everything in his power to get it. I suspect Brett might just walk out on the Vikings if Chili would decide that he's going to bench him.
I liked the column and the idea. There are teams that Jackson or Sage could be good against especially if you tell them a couple weeks ahead of time and let them get in extra film study and preparation for those matchups. I have a blog to and have just wrote a short piece on the love the media is giving the Pack again. It got me mad and ready for the season. Take a look if you have a minute. www.mypurpleveins.blogspot.com
Post a Comment