Choosing Players: Fresh Starts Versus Complacency

Well, a fresh start certainly worked out for Green Bay

In the coming weeks, I will aim to explain some underlying reasons for why teams in each major sport decide to either stick with their current players or look to depend on new ones. Choosing certain players for certain positions can often make the difference between a champion and an underachiever, and it can even impact the future of a franchise. Obviously, one of the main factors in determining which player an organization chooses depends on how successful it believes a player will be. But as the actions of major teams in major sports have shown, there may in fact be other motives behind choosing some players while letting others go.

In the NFL, no position is more important than quarterback. A good QB can efficiently and effectively control an entire offense, while a bad one may create problems that even the best running game or defense cannot solve. Finding a good quarterback, however, is not as easy as it may seem. College studs often turn into pro duds and many first round draft picks and former starters are now merely backups or even out of the league completely. Some quarterbacks can reach the playoffs one year but fail to compile a .500 record for the rest of their careers, while still others can go from failure to success out of nowhere. So when it comes to choosing a quarterback, what factors does a team consider?

When Brett Favre was coming out of one of his many retirements in 2008, he hoped to return to the place he had called home for many years: Green Bay. The Packers, however, had different plans. They stuck with their previously established commitment to Aaron Rodgers, Favre's former backup, and Favre was forced to continue his career somewhere else. In the 2009 season, Favre proved he could still sling it, as he threw for over 4,200 yards and 33 touchdowns to only seven interceptions, leading the Minnesota Vikings to the NFC championship. Many cheese heads may have been quite angry at Packers management for having let Favre go, seeing as he clearly still had some gas left in the tank. Luckily, Rodgers has proven to be one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL, even leading the Packers to a Super Bowl victory in 2010.

So, did the Packers base their decision to stick with Rodgers solely on their confidence in his potential?

Perhaps.

But there were perhaps a few other motivating factors as well. Quite simply, the Packers may have been willing to forfeit a few seasons in exchange for a much brighter future in sticking with Rodgers. Favre might have served as a better quarterback for the Packers than Rodgers did his first few seasons as a starter. But had the Packers chosen to go with Favre, Rodgers may have shipped his talents somewhere else, and the quarterback of the 2012 Packers might be an area of weakness, as opposed to being one of the strongest positions of any team in the league. Also, Favre had been Green Bay's quarterback for 16 seasons. His career there was one for the ages, yet he only led the team to one Super Bowl championship. While a veteran quarterback who has played for the same team for many years is often indispensable, teams that undertake a "fresh start" seem to adopt a new mentality that often gives them the edge they have been missing. Green Bay may have been looking for a new face to serve as their franchise quarterback to give them this fresh outlook, so they went with Rodgers.

This concept of a "fresh start" is an interesting idea in the world of sports. Many fan bases in many sports demand success every year; coaches and players that win championships one year but have losing seasons the next can lose their jobs just like that. With failure as the most recent memory of a player, one who has not yet let the fans down may seem like the better choice, even when overall he may not be.

The Indianapolis Colts chose to take Stanford quarterback Andrew Luck with the first pick overall in the 2012 NFL draft. This decision signified the Colts' lack of interest in Peyton Manning, a future Hall-of-Famer who was returning to the NFL after a serious neck injury. Was Luck a once in a generation talent the Colts didn't want to pass up? Or was the threat of injury with Peyton too big of a risk? Again, either of these motives are more than plausible. But perhaps the Colts also felt "starting over" with Luck as opposed to "reverting" back to Manning would give the team a new mindset. With a new quarterback, there is no record of failure. Fans of the Colts could note Manning's loss to the Saints in the Super Bowl or his many losses to Tom Brady and the Patriots in the AFC playoffs. But Luck, before the start of the 2012 season, had never thrown an interception or lost a game for the Colts. Essentially, a new quarterback is spotless until he proves otherwise, and thus the future of the team seems a whole lot brighter.

Interestingly enough, through the first 8 weeks of this year's NFL season, Luck and the Colts are averaging 19.4 points a game (24th in the league) while Manning and the Denver Broncos are averaging 29.1 (4th best). Rodgers has proved his worth with the Packers, but was picking Luck and choosing a fresh start the best decision for the Colts?

As is often the case in sports, time will tell.