View topic - Should Ben have played?

[isfry Profile]

I spent all week last week fanatically watching the injury updates to determine if Ben would play which, in my estimation at the time, gave us the best chance of winning. I love Ben's grit, and I think the team respects his toughness. That having been said, about halfway through Monday night's game I began to think, hmm... maybe Ben being in there is not only bad for his ankle (which we will need going forward) but bad for the team's chances of winning the Monday Night game (which we needed right then and there.) Especially when the game was more or less "out of reach" (20-3 with less than 8 left in the 4th or so) and Ben was getting tossed around like a ragdoll, I began to wonder, what does he have to prove at this point? Isn't the whole season more important than being at the helm when the ship goes down tonight? I love Ben's competitive instinct, and I guess you have to take it for both the good and bad things it brings, but when I heard MT talking at the press conference about "He wanted to be out there and I wasn't gonna deprive him of that..." I couldn't help but think maybe that was a time when the coach has to tell his QB to sit the fuck down for his own good and for the good of the entire team. Now we (most likely) have to take three road games to get back to the SB, and I don't know if Ben's ankle recovery was set back at all by playing Monday, but it certainly wasn't accelerated. Anyone agree? Disagree?

[Pommah Profile]

20:20 hindsight, obviously not.

This team talks about "The standard is the standard" but apparently that doesnt apply when the QB position is concerned.

Maybe starting Batch would have made the rest of the team pull together and work harder, which they obviously didn't. The team did last year when Ben was out the first four games.