Many sports fans proclaim that loyalty is a lost virtue, especially those that grew up in the era before free agency, before players started to chase record-shattering contracts instead of titles. There is certainly some truth to that, and players who decide to remain with the team that drafted them are often lauded with praise, such as Damian Lillard (up until this past offseason) and Dirk Nowitzki. There is something to be said for not taking the easy way out and joining a super team, unlike LeBron James and Kevin Durant. However, as much as we extol the virtues of loyalty, there is a point at which it becomes more stubbornness than fidelity.
Loyalty is not solely applicable to players, and neither is the thin line that, when crossed, transitions fully into idiocy. As I watched Pitt embarrass themselves in a rivalry game in Morgantown as they lost to West Virginia’s backup quarterback, Derek Jeter’s quote “loyalty one way is stupidity” echoed through my head. Head coach Pat Narduzzi, despite a miserable performance the previous weekend against Cincinnati during which QB Phil Jurkovec only completed 31.3% of his passes, decided that the Western PA native would get another chance in the Backyard Brawl. That was a decision with which I agreed, seeing as though every player will have a bad game at some point. Despite the hope that this game was an anomaly, it turned out to be anything but…
In front of 60,000 screaming Mountaineer fans at Milan Puskar stadium, Jurkovec had one of the worst QB performances I had ever seen in my 22+ years on earth. His stat-line? 8 completions on 20 passing attempts for a paltry 81 yards and THREE interceptions. There are circumstances under which stat-lines can be misleading (see Patrick Mahomes’ performance against the Lions where he routinely hit his receivers in stride, yet they could not even catch a cold), but this was not one of those instances. Each interception thrown by the former highly-rated recruit—now at his third school in six years after failures to thrive at Notre Dame and Boston College—was largely, if not solely his fault. There were instances where there were no receivers in the vicinity when passes either fell to the ground or ended up in a player wearing a hideous yellow jersey’s arms (Google WVU’s uniforms from Saturday—they were repulsive). He routinely short-armed even the least difficult of throws. His decision-making was akin to JaMarcus Russell’s when he reached the NFL—no demonstrable football IQ whatsoever.
I could rant about Jurkovec’s performance on Saturday for hours, but no one wants that. The underlying issue—at least at this juncture—is Pat Narduzzi’s inexplicable loyalty to Jurkovec. Immediately after the game, which was torturous to watch, the former Michigan State defensive coordinator who has been the head coach at Pitt since 2014 announced that Phil would indeed be the starting QB against the 17th ranked team in the country, North Carolina. Why? What did the coaching staff see in his last two performances that gives them ANY hope that he can produce against stronger opposition? Why not give the Penn State transfer Christian Veilleux (yes, I had to Google how to spell that) a chance? Could he possibly be any worse than a QB rating of 10?
This is demonstrative of the thin line between loyalty and stupidity. The best coaches care more about winning than they do such a seemingly abstract concept as fidelity. Take the 2018 national championship, for example. That is the game where Nick Saban decided to bench Jalen Hurts for Tua Tagovailoa, who would throw the game-winning touchdown in overtime to clinch the national title. Saban, arguably the greatest coach in college football history, benched his year-long starter in the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP…and it worked. Granted, it helps when you have a five-star recruit waiting in the wings, but that is no excuse for riding with a quarterback who seemingly has no ability.
This rant is becoming a little bit long-winded, so I will get to the bottom-line. Pat Narduzzi’s apparent blind loyalty to Phil Jurkovec is nothing but stubbornness and stupidity. Instead of being loyal to your QB, how about being loyal to your TEAM and attempting to give them the best chance to win?
Premier League Round-Up: Should Manchester City be Concerned?
It is not very often that a club that has won all five of their league matches and sits in first place should even think about being concerned about their play thus far, but there are some elements to Manchester City’s start that give cause for concern. I am not talking about the loss to Arsenal in the Community Shield, as that is a fixture that they routinely lose and essentially has no impact on the team (City lost the Community Shield but won the Champion’s League last season, a trade-off that every supporter would take 7 days a week). I am not even talking about the miserable performance in the UEFA Super Cup against Sevilla where it took a late Cole Palmer (now a Chelsea player) equalizer and penalties to hoist the trophy in Athens. I am talking about City’s relatively poor strength-of-schedule and the lackluster performances that have riddled these five games. Their matches so far? A win against newly promoted Burnley, who at the time of writing have not yet picked up a point in this Premier League campaign. A narrow win against Newcastle United, a side who overperformed last year and qualified for the Champion’s League, but have gotten off to a decidedly poor start to this season. A 2-1 win over Sheffield United, another newly promoted side, where it took a late Rodri goal to seal the three points. A 5-1 victory against Fulham, a match that was 2-1 at half time (Aké’s controversial goal to give City the lead took place on the stroke of the whistle signaling for the teams to enter their respective dressing rooms). And most recently, a 3-1 win against an overachieving West Ham side where City conceded first and needed a three goal second half.
There is the expression “a win is a win” to which there is an abundance of truth—why should one care about the nature of a victory so long as it counts? City supporters should care because they have not yet faced the traditional powerhouses of England’s top-flight soccer league in Arsenal (in the league), Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool, and Tottenham Hotspur. If their performances against some of those sides mirror their first five matches, the results of these fixtures could be suboptimal. It certainly did not help to lose Kevin De Bruyne—arguably the greatest playmaker the game has seen—in the first match of the Premier League season, but there are no excuses for a club with as much talent and as large a transfer budget as the sky blues. I hope that I am wrong as a City supporter myself, but I am very concerned that the matches they play against stronger opposition could cost them the league if their execution of attacking moves and counter-attacking defense do not improve.