Politics of Pigskin

This past Tuesday's failed Gonzalez trade certainly had to be disappointing for Packers fans. The chance to add a potent offensive weapon like Tony G only comes along every so often and his acquisition would've silenced the critics who claim Ted Thompson can't pull the trigger on deal-breakers.

But these events should leave pro-football fans across the board with an ill feeling in their guts. They indicate an unsettling trend in the NFL: the politicization of personnel and roster moves.

In the realm of politics, complacency and inaction have become the name of the game. Rarely is meaningful change or needed reform brought about, as politicians seem content to play it safe, avoiding the controversial issues and rarely taking on risky challenges. The cause of this political retardation is simple: elected officials are more concerned with staying in office than improving policy . In essence, they're top priority is securing their own immediate interests and ambitions, rather than the long-term well-being of their constituents.

In politics, change is risky. Messing with the status quo can lead to some ruffled feathers. In order to bring meaningful, lasting change, chances are, some people's toes will be stepped on in the process. And in a line of work where your job security is systematically challenged every few years, pissing off voters for the sake of progress is not something many public servants are willing to do.

Honestly, imagine if your state senator came forward and announced a proposal that would eventually lower people's income taxes 15% in a 10 year period. The only hitch: income taxes for the immediately following 5 years would be raised 30%. Now, despite the fact that such a policy is a figment of my imagination, it's completely unpractical for another reason: such a policy would be political suicide. Heck, I wouldn't even vote for the guy who tried to implement this, and I'm the one that came up with the idea. In general, people are not willing to sacrifice significant losses now for sustainable gains in the future, and they pick their politicians accordingly.

The parallels between the self-motivated politicians and the NFL are obvious. In the here today, gone tomorrow mentality of current NFL employment standards, GM's and coaches are concerned with one thing: doing whatever it takes to keep their jobs. As a result, what's best for a team in the long run often plays second fiddle to getting as many W's in the here and now as possible.

The Tony Gonzalez situation is a perfect example. Herm Edwards and Carl Peterson are comfortably sitting on the proverbial Hot Seat (or is it "uncomfortably" sitting?). Their joint reign over the past few years has been disastrous, and the Chiefs have gone from a perennial post-season threat to the doormat of the AFC. The only way these two can possibly hold on to their jobs is to generate as many wins as they can muster within the duration of the season.

Obviously, Gonzalez can do a lot more for them immediately than a third-round draft pick could. But in all honesty, does anyone actually believe that his contributions over the next 2-3 years are going to be enough to turn this team into anything but a sub .500 one? Probably not. A third-rounder, although not helpful immediately, would've undoubtedly made more sense for the Chiefs, who are definitely still in the "rebuilding phase." The problem is, giving up TG can really only translate into losses in the upcoming games. Why would a coach or GM risk building for the future if it means they'll probably be out of a job come season's end?

And here lies the predicament. Coaches and GM's concerned with immediate gratification rather than long-term returns. And in a situation like the botched Gonzalez transaction, they're the only ones that come out with any semblance of a win. The Chiefs as a team, Tony Gonzalez himself, and certainly the Packers all came out on the losing end.

But can we really put all the blame on the management figures? Isn't it our fault, perpetuating a standard of instant gratification, rather than a pragmatic approach that would lead to the most wins in the long run? Just think of all the flak Ted Thompson has received because he "drafts for the future" and refuses to build his team up by chasing after big name free agents. Ask yourself, how much did you really support this guy back in '06 and '07, when he was drafting the likes of unheralded WR's out of Western Michigan instead of pursuing super stars like Randy Moss?

Certainly, this trend is a tad problematic, but it's roots aren't exactly definite.