Burns: Don’t root for a Cardinals loss
Some times in life things come exactly as advertised.
When you go see TRON, you’ll get exactly what you expect. Loud. Bright. Action. No plot.
Sunday’s game between two teams with rookie quarterbacks, the 4-9 Arizona Cardinals and 1-12 Carolina Panthers, came exactly as advertised. As an entertainment product, it was….uh…..lacking. A 19-12 loss that swung the Cardinals from a double-digit win team to a double-digit loss team in the span of a year.
John Skelton, making his first start on the road, didn’t look nearly as comfortable as he had the week prior against the Broncos. The now familiar and lethal combination of bad throws and bad drops once again doomed the Cardinals offense.
The defense was, at times, gashed by Carolina’s running game and didn’t force the turnovers they did last weekend but mostly kept the Cardinals in the game. Any kind of reasonable output by the offense would have resulted in a different outcome.
Ho to the Hum.
Heck even Jay Feely couldn’t pull off a couple of on-sides kicks. It was that kind of afternoon for the Cardinals.
At this point, the only story line with a pulse centers on a top ten draft pick. Last week was clearly a victory for the You-Play-To-Win-The-Game-Herm-Edwards crowd. This week, the argument will volley back to the Lose-To-Get-The-Best-Pick side of the net. The bickering between the two is, unfortunately, what this season has boiled down to.
If you want them to lose…that is your prerogative, though I truly doubt you sit on your couch and actively root for a loss. If, as a good friend suggested to me, you choose not to watch because you know it’s best for them to lose but you can’t stomach the sight of it…that too is your prerogative. If you think they’re best served continuing to play Skelton to evaluate his abilities…join the club.
But to think they should try to lose – want to lose – then you are in the wrong business, or at least reading the wrong blog. There is never a scenario in which a culture of victory is fostered by losing.