Here’s the case for allowing Saquon Barkley to go after Eric Dickerson’s record

The easiest thing in the world to say about Saquon Barkley and his pursuit of the NFL’s single-season rushing record is what the Eagles said Wednesday: For the good of their Super Bowl chances, for the good of Barkley’s health, for the good of everyone’s peace of mind, he should not pursue it.

It’s easy to say it because the reasoning underpinning it is sound. The Eagles are trying to win a championship here, and Barkley is their best and most valuable player. There’s a strong case that he has been the best and most valuable player in the entire NFL this season, whether he ended up surpassing Eric Dickerson’s 2,105 rushing yards or not. And having him take the field Sunday against the New York Giants — in a game whose outcome won’t affect the Eagles’ playoff seeding, just for the sake of picking up 101 yards and setting the record — would be too risky. He might get hurt, and he could use the rest. The whole team could. The Eagles had their bye week three months ago, and Barkley’s 345 carries and 378 touches are already the highest such totals of his seven-year career.

» READ MORE: Chaos reigns in the NFL at head coach and at quarterback. For the Eagles, 2024 has already been won.

The decision is strategic. It’s safe. Its logic is airtight. Yep. Logic. That’s why we watch sports, right?

No, it’s not.

Why do we watch sports? Unless you’re a gambler, you watch because your investment isn’t financial but emotional. You love your team. You love a particular player. You want to witness something thrilling and affecting. You want a moment.

With Barkley on the bench Sunday, the odds of a moment manifesting itself will decrease significantly, and while I understand why the Eagles aren’t playing him, there’s still a part of me, a big part, that doesn’t like it. Dickerson’s record has stood since 1984, untouched for 40 years. The Eagles are passing up an opportunity to make history, and those opportunities usually demand a measure of risk.

Sure, a championship is supposed to be the highest goal for a professional athlete, for a franchise, for a fan base. The Eagles have won just one Super Bowl — no one can call their fans spoiled — so the desire to celebrate a second will override every other consideration. I get it. But championships aren’t the only goals, the only moments. There are things in sports, even in Philadelphia sports, that are rarer and every bit as memorable.

Take 2010. None of the city’s major franchises won a championship, but I’d argue that it’s one of the greatest years in the city’s sports history. Within an eight-month span, all of the following events transpired:

» READ MORE: With Eagles in ‘grind-it-out mode,’ Kellen Moore naturally turned to Saquon Barkley

Championships are awesome, but championships aren’t everything. Thought experiment: Suppose Charlie Manuel had lifted Halladay after seven no-hit innings against the Reds. And suppose Manuel had justified the move by invoking the same thinking that the Eagles are using now with respect to Barkley: We need Roy to be as fresh and rested as possible for the playoff run. We’re trying to win a World Series here. Would everyone have accepted that decision?

Again, I get it. The NFL is different. Pro football is different. The risk that Barkley might injure himself against the Giants, or that the increased workload and attrition will lessen his effectiveness in the postseason, is higher than it was for Halladay. Even if the Eagles were to reverse course and suit up Barkley on Sunday, he might not break the record anyway.

I’m not suggesting the Eagles are making the wrong decision here. I’m suggesting that they’re passing up one shot at immortality for another, and they might end up with neither. There’s no reason to rip them for it. There’s no reason to be angry here. But the sight of Barkley breaking this record — against his old team — would have made for a wonderful story, for a moment, and there’s nothing wrong with being disappointed that it won’t happen.