JamesTheScot
Footballguy
When you post what I highlighted in red, it sounds like you are saying he isn't locked into the #2 because he wasn't a choir boy. You made an assertion, and the next line appears to be your proof for that assertion.What? Of course they are going to send him into the game. Where did you get anything other than that? The point was that it is possible for Crowell to #### the bed off the field because of character concerns that many in this thread were pointing to not two months ago.You mean the coaches aren't going to send him into the game next week when they otherwise would because they are still mulling over his college indiscretions?No one is passing Tate while he is healthy. He is just running too well to justify replacing him.
I am still not 100% that Crowell is locked into the #2RB role either. It's not like Crow has a squeaky clean reputation when it comes to character issues.
Comeon, man. His college career means nothing anymore. All they care about is that he is showing up to work and producing against NFL competition when it counts.
Until he actually does something that gets him in trouble and makes him ineligible to be on the field, they are perfectly happy to use him up and ride the train as long as they can. They couldn't care less about his past on game day.
To look at it another way, what is the downside to running him until either his wheels come off or until he screws up and gets drummed out of the league? There is none. What downside has there been to the Vikings for relying on Peterson all those years prior to his trouble? Absolutely none. There's only downside to rolling them out onto the field RIGHT AFTER they mess up.
And it doesn't matter because I guarantee they aren't starting him in front of the veteran who is producing. The NFL seldom works that way.
If that isn't what you were saying, fine. But you sure made it look as if that's what you were saying.
As for the vet versus rookie argument, if Crowell plays better than Tate, he absolutely will start over Tate. But there's more to playing RB than just running, so to say that Crowell is playing better than Tate may not be accurate. The total package that Tate brings could still bring more total value to the lineup than what Crowell does even though Crowell appears to be running better. But Tate's job security isn't because he's a veteran, it's because his all around game is more polished. There are plenty of veterans that ride the pine every week behind rookie and less experienced players. So it would be a mistake to attribute Tate's job security to his veteran status. Instead, it's due to his skill and talent.
But similar to your statement about Crowell's past, you state what could be a correct conclusion, but the reasoning you used to get there seems off or very imprecise.
If Crowell hasn't locked down the #2 spot, it has nothing to do with his off field concerns dating back to college.
And if Tate's lead back job is safe, it's because he's the better all around back, not simply because he's a veteran.