This isn’t the same as Grady not pulling Pedro, who had a track record of struggling late in games. Fitzpatrick was an unknown. Murphy took a chance. It backfired.

If Schires had remained in the game, would Harvard have won? The way the defense gave up the big pass repeatedly, probably not.

Obviously, Murphy would never have played Fitzpatrick if he thought he was in great jeopardy of hurting his hand again.

The two biggest games of the season are still to come—Penn and Yale. Murphy was fully aware of that. But given that Fitzpatrick had practiced and been fine, he felt it was worth the risk. As New York Jets coach Herm Edwards once said, “you play to win the games.” And playing Fitzpatrick was Harvard’s best shot at winning.

When Fitzpatrick entered the game, did you really expect him to commit three turnovers? Admit it, you were surprised.

Instead, you thought he’d lead Harvard to victory, just as he did time and time again last season in relief of Neil Rose.

So why blame Murphy for playing the most dominant offensive player in the Ivy League—the one guy, on any team, that can completely take over a game.

If Fitzpatrick can’t play against Penn, it will be a shame. But I still won’t blame the coach for trying to win.

—Staff writer Alex M. Sherman can be reached at sherman@fas.harvard.edu.