An aging free-agent was brought in to shore up the weakest position on a good-but-not-great team, good enough to win their division last year. The team was already built around a 2-time all-star and MVP candidate, unquestionably one of the best players in the league at his position. The team's playing style needed to be changed in order to maximize the strengths brought by the new acquisition. Fans argued that the free agent and the all-star were incompatible, and that the free-agent was negatively impacting the all-star's play by dominating the ball. The free-agent and the head coach clashed over the coach controlling the team's play too much, not allowing the veteran free-agent to do the job he was brought in to do. It seems the Favre-Childress situation in Minnesota holds a lot of similarities to the Miller-McMillan situation here. Discuss.
Interesting thought. Obviously it's a bit different given Favre played like an MVP for the first half of the season, but still interesting to think about.
Childress didn't insist on starting Tavaris Jackson over Brett Favre even though the team was 10-6 (.625 winning %) the year before.
Cool comparison, but Miller is no Favre. If we had brought in Nash, then I'd be way more open to retooling our offense. Having said that, I'm rethinking my whole take on the situation. Others have made a convincing argument. I'm not 100% convinced that a Roy/Miller backcourt is the best solution for this season, but a better look at it needs to be taken. Just as McMillan consistently went to his offense over the past three seasons, it may be time for him to stick with something new, given we have Miller. Let Miller and Roy run the show together, and with Roy giving his full endorsement and support. It's time that McMillan and Roy deal with the fact that Miller is here and not going anywhere. A fair chance needs to be given for Miller to either succeed or fail, and that goes for the fourth quarters as well. That means that McMillan also needs to surround the two guards with an offense that can help BOTH succeed. What we have now will not work, as Miller can't hit from distance. We've got a lot of bright minds. Put them to work and let's see what they can do. I don't believe it'll work well, but at least let's put this to rest and see.
I'm not sure if the Miller-Favre comparison washes, but Chilly-Nate seems to have some correlation ... and I say this as a Packers fan who is somewhat familiar with Chilly ball; he's very stubborn, and runs a very limited style of offense (pre Favre). It's one of the reasons I'm not too worried about the Vikings ever winning the super bowl with him at the helm.
I never meant to suggest that they correlate perfectly. There are strong similarities, but there are also obvious differences. I think a good compare/contrast would be worthwhile. Speaking as a Vikings fan, you suck. And you're right.
