Should Players Lose Starting Position Due To Injury? (1 Viewer)

[SaintsFanInLA]

When a starter goes down and the backup steps up and plays at the same level as the prior starter, should the injured player who then recovers automatically be guaranteed his job back?

I am not sure of how I feel on this one. If the backup plays below the level of the original starter, this is a no brainer, you want the best player in the position.

But if the backup plays as good as the original starter, this is cause for some debate and maybe let them fight for the position or reps in practice.

Now, if the backup steps in and does an even BETTER job than the starter was doing prior to injury, there is no question, I think you gotta let the new guy continue to be the starter.

Just curious as to how most of the Saints fans and other posters on this board feel about it.

 

[dat dam dog]

I didn't vote on this, choices 2 and 3 are the same thing.

So, you see.


ddd

 

[SaintsFanInLA]

I didn't vote on this, choices 2 and 3 are the same thing.

So, you see.


ddd

Not necessarily, because the backup could perform worse than the original starter and yet you could still want the original starter to have to compete for the position.

 

[JeffDaSaintsGuy]

Its a simple case of "if it ain't broke don't fix it" to me. If the backup comes in and gets the job done better than the injured starter, why make a change?

 

[NotOnHerb]

Ask New England if Tom Brady should be their quarterback or if they should have handed it back to Bledsoe. Unfortunately, injuries are part of the game and are a way for back ups to get game time experience to prove themselves. Nothing is, or should be, guaranteed.

 

[DangBeast]

If the backup comes in and purely without a doubt, just completely destroys the position, I think that you have let the player who was hurt come in and compete for the position back. As far as this matter goes, Brown will take his job back, Pierre Thomas will take his job back, and other than that, the jobs may be open

 

[Saints1257]

if the there is little to no drop off in play and the backup is younger with ability to get better and no injury history

then keep the injured guy on the bench

 

[Saints#34]

Positions are always determined by performance. No one is promised a starting position, even injured starters.

 

[SaintsFanInLA]

Ask New England if Tom Brady should be their quarterback or if they should have handed it back to Bledsoe. Unfortunately, injuries are part of the game and are a way for back ups to get game time experience to prove themselves. Nothing is, or should be, guaranteed.

This was actually the first example that I thought of when I made this thread but I was wondering if loyalty or size of contracts figured into anyone's opinions.

 

[Cuozzo67]

If it's the Nesbit and Nicks scenario, no. It's obvious that Nicks, once he got a chance to start, was far better than Nesbit. In the case of Bushrod and Brown, I think Brown will eventually re-claim the starting job when he returns from injury. Bushrod has been o.k., but Brown is the better player. When you're talking about the welfare of your top player, you put the better OT on the field.

 

[Rice Owl]

The thread title and the poll question are different. I was all ready to feign anger at the idea of forcing an injured player to not start the game in the name of continuing to be a starter

I voted that he should have to win it back. If he's better than the backup, it should only take a practice or two to figure out who should be starting.

 

[67Bndwagnfan]

I don't think that is right and it should not happen.


Sign: Drew Bledsoe

 

[bearze34]

I think that it was a crime that Deuce wasn't automatically given back his starting job when he got his multiple injuries. He should be starting right now. No, seriously, whoever is the best player must play no matter how you figure out who is better. Trent Green got injured, Vermeil cried, and Warner stepped in and lit it up. Should Green have been given back his job? No way.

 

[LSSpam]

Just curious as to how most of the Saints fans and other posters on this board feel about it

You ask as if there is a possible moral component to the question. There's not. You play the player who gives you the best chance to win.

 

[basilisk]

needed another option... we'll call it the jeff blake option... if the starter was playing at a pro bowl level, he shouldn't lose his position