Posted on: May 5, 2009 5:31 pm
To Whom It May Concern:
As you are probably aware, there have been some complaints with how the rating system is run on this site. For the most part, I have very little to add, and I never said much in the past, but with the sharp decline in my reputation recently for my lack of participation, I feel I should express my concern. I realize there are factors to how the rating system works, but I think participation is a particular dangerous one. The reason is that, like other users, I can't be on this website regularly and, when I have nothing to add to the message boards, it seems harsh to drop my rating so low. Sometimes, I can be busy and unable to visit the site for weeks at a time, and when I come back, I realize my reputation has dropped 5 points and I lost my Superstar status.
So what do I do when I don't have time or anything to write on these boards? If I do nothing, my reputation continues to drop. I can't be the only one who doesn't have the time to consistently contribute to this site. There needs to be a way to accomodate long hiatuses.
My suggestion is to have some kind of option that allows users to essentially take a break from the site without consequences. Just make an option that allows the user to visit the site without the need to actually meet a participation expectation. This option will shut down any priveledges but it won't hurt the reputation. When the user is ready to return, he or she can turn it off and all the rules are back in effect.
Actually, I am curious to know if logging out would prevent any damage to the reputation, because if that isn't the case, it would be a good way of doing. Again, I am simply referring to the role of participation and how hiatuses can hurt it. If logging out or clicking some button allows a user to roam this site without the necessity of posting on the boards, the frustration of losing points can be reduced.
Besides, if it becomes too much of a burden, I certainly have reason to just close the account and leave. I don't want to do this, but I don't want to be obligated to write every day when I simply don't have time.
Posted on: April 5, 2009 4:22 pm
A while back, I wrote a blog expressing my irritation with the excessive arguing among Packers fans and the rift it caused. I tried not to be offensive, but I was annoyed by the constant bickering and name calling. I missed the days when we were all simply Packers fans, no categories attached (Favre-hater or Thompson-lover). So, when I went to the JSOnline board, a place I frequently visit, I was pleased to read this plea from Greg A. Bedard in his Packers Daily Briefing entry for today (April 5th), which reminded me that I'm not alone:
PAUSE FOR THE CAUSE A small, minor request: Can you all just grow up? Can't Packers Nation come here and just have a respectful debate over the topics of the day? Why does everything have to devolve into name-calling? Is it too much to ask for you all to be adults? Come on, kids come here to read up on their favorite team. Can you keep that in mind as you decide whether or not to post some of the despicable things your write. Please, you're Packers fans. Start to act like it, will you? Or move to Detroit.
PAUSE FOR THE CAUSE
A small, minor request: Can you all just grow up? Can't Packers Nation come here and just have a respectful debate over the topics of the day? Why does everything have to devolve into name-calling? Is it too much to ask for you all to be adults?
Come on, kids come here to read up on their favorite team. Can you keep that in mind as you decide whether or not to post some of the despicable things your write.
Please, you're Packers fans. Start to act like it, will you? Or move to Detroit.
Couldn't agree more, and this from a professional journalist. My entire point can be summed up by this "Pause for the Clause": the problem is not that fans disagree; it is that they resort to name calling to make their point. So, maybe there is some growing to do. The Packers community could benefit from more respect. I am sure the types of people I (and Bedard) are referring to remain a minority. There are many fans who can disagree in a way that does not resort to aggression. I am just tired of the types described in both mine and Bedard's blog entry.
It is just a relief to read someone articulate my frustrations in such an honest way. At least, as long as that doesn't make me the bad guy.
Posted on: April 4, 2009 11:21 pm
Edited on: April 4, 2009 11:23 pm
Okay, so I didn't write much this week (other then entries about Cutler and Favre). I had ideas, but just didn't take the time to write them down. In fact, I don't really have much for this edition of Week In Review. I am just too lazy to be witty, so I will keep this brief. Really brief. Real . . . brief . . . .
Sorry, I think I am actually dosing off within my writing. Did you know you could do this? I did--I didn't know . . . you get the idea. So, to start off, I am going to list off some of the plans I had and how they worked out . . .
Write About My Positions on different hot topics - Yeah, so, you see, that's kind of time consuming and really boring. You understand why I haven't followed through on that yet.
Write on a mostly daily basis - Okay, so that's just silly. Why add more entries no one will read?
Create Review Blogs that Would Make fun of past works - I'm not really a funny person, so . . .
Write . . . wait, I know this . . . write stuff that I had in my head that I never . . . wrote . . . down . Because you are interested in this drivel.
(Heavy yawn; yes I wrote that down) Now, for a brief review of the blogs for this week. At least I follow through on one promise!
Favre They are kind of similar
You know, about how childish both quarterbacks act.
Bus Cook is an evil, evil man
Possibly the devil, or at least a close relative
Ted Thompson and Josh McDaniels should join a Bus Cook group, to support each other
The Broncos management, Mike McCarthy, and others affected by Favre should be there too
Bla . . . Bla . . . Aaron Rodgers is still the best
Oh, and underdogs are cool (See Michigan State)
And a list of names to boost my rating: Packers, Broncos, Bears, Kyle Orton . . . Terrell Owens, Tony Romo, . . . Greg Jennings, Brandon Marshall (Yes, I know the last names had nothing to do with my blogs, but I don't care. In fact, I'm bored of this.)
So, until next week (when my review will be reduced to complete gibberish and my blogs will be incomprehensible), do . . . . . . . something.
Posted on: April 4, 2009 10:54 pm
I love pulling for the underdog. There is just such a satisfaction in watching a team no one expects to win beat the favorite; it is truly gratifying. This is why I chose the name "FavoredUnderdog." It is also the reason why I intend to write these brief blog entries commemorating the achievements of certain underdogs. They deserve recognition for their accomplishments, beating the odds and winning in spite of their "weaknesses." This is a place to do so.
And, to begin this series, I think the little-Big Ten team that could should be the first honorary mention: the Michigan State Spartans.
In all honesty, I don't know much about the team. I don't actively follow college basketball, though I do keep an eye and ear open to the events of the tournament. While I might claim to be a Wisconsin Badgers fan (I am more of a fan of Wisconsin teams; I have no affiliation to UWM, instead graduating from UWGB), I do find it easier to cheer for teams in the Big Ten conference, including Michigan State. Why? It's simple: the Big Ten is rarely respected among the mentions of other, bigger conferences. In other words, they are the underdogs.
And, so, I was immediately intrigued by Michigan State, ever since I watched them beat the former champion, Kansas. It was then I started to see what a real underdog they were. I read articles on this site praising them for their effort in defeating Kansas but not giving them a chance to beat Louisville. They didn't have enough big stars; they weren't flashy enough; they weren't a power team. In other words, they weren't a favorite. Then they beat Louisville and reached the Final Four, but they couldn't beat UConn, right?
Wrong again "experts."
The Michigan State Spartans managed to prove that they could play against the big boys and won these games, despite no one giving them any chance. I am proud of this team, but not because I am a fan. I am proud because they are the underdogs . . . and they were victorious!
(Cue corny triumphant music that builds to a crescendo and ends on the word "victorious.")
Yeah, I know I'm not adding anything new and that much of this may seem like cliches (this is my first entry, so it has room to improve in the future), but that doesn't diminish the accomplishment. They defied the experts and showed that they can be the better team, and they did it with "inferior" talent. I don't know if they will win it all, but I'm not concerned about that. I suspect that they aren't either. They probably won't be given much of a chance once again, but what do they care?
They proved them wrong before.
Congratulations to the Michigan State Spartans and their fans. And good luck against the next giant!
Posted on: April 4, 2009 1:35 am
Edited on: April 4, 2009 1:42 am
The first statement I remember regarding Jay Cutler whenever I see or write his name is one that was repeated frequently during the months before he was drafted: Cutler is the next Brett Favre. He has all the skill--the strong arm, the escapability, the gunslinging mentality--leading to the comparison to the infamous and legendary quarterback. Until now, I didn't entirely buy into the comparison. I mean, these days, there are plenty of quarterbacks with strong arms who managed to escape pressure and make tough throws (including the Packers current quarterback, Aaron Rodgers). There had to be something more to make him deserve this distinction (assuming it is the honor people make it out to be). Now, after the controversy surrounding Jay Cutler and the recent, public divorce, it finally makes sense.
But not in the sense that would be considered praise-worthy.
Be prepared for me to spout some anti-Favre rant. You know, because I'm a hater. And note that, with those statements, my tongue was planted firmly in my cheek.
I mean, how often do two quarterbacks force a painful divorce over the span of one year?
I know your problem thinking they are not the same situations. Ted Thompson forced Brett Favre into retirement and then traded him when he was too stubborn to take him back. Jay Cutler became upset when the new coach became interested in trading for a quarterback he coached with the Patriots (Matt Cassel), which made him feel unwanted. The two situations are different, so how do they compare? It is not how it happened that matters, but how they acted during the event. It is the characteristics that I find strikingly similar. Consider the following:
Obviously, these are all very negative characteristics and a lot of it is speculative and based on what I've read, but I get the impression that they both responded in a similar way. So, with that in mind, I should mention that I am not a Favre hater and I'm not a Cutler hater; I just don't like athletes that act this way. More importantly, I don't like it when fans continually defend these actions. Was Favre a great quarterback? Sure. Is Cutler a young talent? No doubt, but I can't excuse this behavior. Which brings me to the most obvious connection: they both have the same agent--Bus Cook. I would not be surprised if all the above "characteristics" were fueled by their agents. I mean, who would want his players to receive more attention? The Agent. Who would want to stretch out the drama and create controversy? Agent. Who would want the player to continue to push until he got the demand (act stubborn)? Bus Cook; the agent. Therefore, I will not quickly blame either quarterback entirely for displaying these characteristics. It might have been amplified by an agent who wants attention. And, since we are still discussing it, it should work.
The next Brett Favre? Maybe, possibly on the field and off the field. Or maybe he is just another tool Cook uses for his own gain.
Either way, we will sure be seeing a lot more of him now; and now it is Chicago that gets to deal with it.
For better or worse.
Posted on: April 2, 2009 6:52 pm
Edited on: April 2, 2009 6:56 pm
It's about time.
After months and months of failed efforts to have Brett Favre sent to a rival opponent, Bus Cook finally found a way to enact his revenge. He couldn't get Favre on the Vikings, but he did manage the next best thing: he sent "the next Brett Favre" to the Bears.
Why would Bus Cook want revenge though? Wasn't it Brett Favre who was disgruntled? Perhaps, but this Cutler situation has me wondering how much of a role he actually plays in these controversies. This type of national quarterback drama doesn't happen to this extreme every year, except for the last two, both sharing the same agent. What exactly does Bus Cook tell his clients?
Maybe he tried to push Favre back out of retirement, so that he wouldn't lose his star quarterback. Maybe he fueled the hatred toward Ted Thompson and convinced Favre he wasn't getting enough attention. Maybe he pushed Jay Cutler to further incite his anger toward Josh McDaniels and trade talk. He might have even convinced management that Cutler would never play with the Broncos again (even though, last night, I heard a report saying that Jay Glazer and Alex Marvez spoke to Cutler at an MMA event and he seemed less adament about the trade). I don't know what is said behind closed doors, but when situations like these happens repeatedly, it becomes a trend.
And it all comes down to Cook's hatred toward Ted Thompson.
Think about it: he must have been upset that Thompson supposedly "pushed" his star, money-making client into retirement. So, he would have reason to want to fuel Favre's own irritation and encourage him to seek a release so he can play with a rival. Part one of his revenge was getting the fans to all hate Thompson as much as he did. Part two was getting a quarterback to challenge the Packers within our division (he seems to like sending his clients to rival teams; look at Steve McNair and his move from the Titans to the Ravens). That happened when a trade was made to the Bears for Jay Cutler. Now Favre and Cook can get together, have a drink, and laugh at how they managed to get their revenge.
As Favre might say, they finally managed to stick it to Ted.
Okay, so that sounds crazy, but it kind of makes sense.
Posted on: April 2, 2009 6:29 pm
Edited on: April 4, 2009 1:41 am
So, Jay Culter was traded to the Bears and now the Packers' rival finally has a real threat at quarterback. It's time to worry, right? This makes the Bears a difficult team to overcome in this division and probably a favorite. We should all be scared of the Bears now.
No, not really.
Why not? He's got a strong arm, better than John Elway, he might say. He is considered a franchise quarterback, still young and full of potential. But he also has an attitude problem, it seems, the kind that started this whole mess. Besides, he hasn't proven anything yet.
But wasn't he supposed to be the next Brett Favre, with a strong arm and a gunslinger mentality? And shouldn't we be nervous knowing the "next Brett Favre" will be wearing a Bears jersey. Well, Brett Favre was fun to watch, but he found a way to win games even with his wreckless play (though, later in his career, he really began to struggle down the stretch). That is why he is considered one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time (despite the controversy of last year, he still deserves credit). What has Cutler done so far to earn that honor?
Simply put: nothing.
One of the knocks on the Packers current franchise quarterback, Aaron Rodgers, was that he couldn't win games. He had a 6-10 record as a starter, which just doesn't cut it, at least by the standards of Packers fans (alright, it is not considered good no matter what). Those defending him point to the lack of defense and the tendency to give up fourth quarter leads. Others don't buy that excuse. So, what about Jay Cutler?
If you think he will be the next great quarterback in the division and the new number 1 among the NFC North (quite the competition he has), you need to reevaluate how you determine great quarterbacks. And in doing so, Aaron Rodgers stock should go up within the new parameters. Let me explain: Jay Cutler, despite the hype around him, has a losing record. 3 years ago, he came into the season and started with a 2-3 record. His first full season, he ended up with a 7-9 record (one game ahead of Rodgers), and then last year he had an 8-8 season, for a grand total of 17 wins and 20 losses. He faded down the stretch and blew a substantial lead he had over the Chargers. He wasn't even considered the best quarterback in his division, as many pointed to how well Phillip Rivers played (by the way, he actually has more than one playoff victory next to his name). Plus, he got a little help in one game from Ed Hochuli, which saved him from another losing season.
Here, then, is what I mean by adjusting the definition of a great quarterback to fit one quarterback while neglecting the next. Jay Cutler is great because he has a strong arm and a lot of hype, and bad defense loss his games. And yet Rodgers is bad because he lost games (it wasn't bad defense) and follows a legend (remember, Jay Cutler was an effort to finally replace John Elway). I'm not saying that everyone excited about Cutler makes this excuse, but the point is that you can't have it both ways. It case you didn't know, Rodgers has a strong arm as well.
But we should be afraid. Cutler is a Bear. Our rivals have a franchise quarterback. Sure, they might. But they still don't have receivers (Cutler can't rely on Brandon Marshall to make big plays for him anymore) and that defense isn't as good as it used to be. I don't think this is an immediate fix. Plus, 2 first rounders, a third, and Kyle Orton? Seems like a lot. When did the Bears become the Vikings?
Oh, wait. The Vikings only have Tarvaris Jackson and Sage Rosenfels. The Bears now have Jay frickin' Cutler. He's the answer to all their problems (I mean, they did give up four players to aquire him). As long as the Bears don't do anything to hurt his fragile feelings.
Sunday night opening weekend should be an interesting match up now: Cutler vs. Rodgers. Bears versus Packers.
Let the battle begin.
Posted on: March 28, 2009 10:56 pm
Edited on: March 28, 2009 11:26 pm
Since I have decided to be more consistent in my blog entries and hope to have regular posts most days of the week, I thought it would be fun to include a week in review--with a twist. These posts will not review the events of the week in the world of sports; instead, here I will mock and barate everything I wrote over the last six days. In other words, this is where I refer back to every serious post and laugh at how intense they actually are. So, for those of you who rolled your eyes at some of my posts this week, now is my chance to show I understand your pain. More importantly, it is a chance to apologize and recant some of the statements I might of made rashly. So, here we go: Installment number one of "Week in Review: Whining, Complaining and Ranting"!
Whining - The other posters on the Packers board bore me; I would rather hide on my blog where I can entertain myself!
So, here's the thing - I overreacted. I guess here is where I apologize to the posters who don't irritate me to no end. Those who already know my positions on certain hot button issues (more on that later) know to whom I'm referring. I have been on those boards since the whole Favre controversy started (and well before that), so I've seen the difference. Packers' fans are split and some posters can be rude against those with opposing positions. It is irritating fighting a pointless fight. But it is still pathetic on my part to write a blog compaining about this while being too cowardly to return to the boards and continue discussing with the Packers' community, no matter how split it is. I'll be back (whether you like it or not). Oh, and on a lighter note (that is the point of this blog entry), I sure chose a stupid opening blog to begin regular entries. Apparently, I attack those who contribute to the Packers' board and expect them to read my rants? I'm a joke. Oh, and very boring. Maybe I should have just said that to begin with. In summary, I'm boring, the Packers board is not, and fighting over the same topic for years to come is more entertaining than my complaining about it. Not fun. But eventful.
Complaining - Excessive Penalties are bad; but too many games is worse. This just in from the NFL--athletes are sissies!
Totally right here, but I doubt many read this after I insulted them with my last post. In short, fun is lacking with all these rules and ironies of how saftey is supposedly more effective when calling excessive fouls than when adding more wear-and-tear of a longer schedule. That line made absolutely no sense, but I don't care. Read the blog or find something more productive to do, whatever that may be. You know, for all this talk about fun, I certainly don't know how to have it. This is probably my most boring post yet. At least I scared away any potential readers before they even reached this.
"My opinion matters," says the guy who told those who have opposing views to shut up .
Here is where I act like my readers deserve to know my position on everything. Frankly, I doubt you will get very many follow up entries. I don't keep promises that well. So, to the few people who actually care, be prepared for disappointment. Doesn't matter, though, since the one reader who probably actually follows this blog is already disappointed. That's right, I disappoint myself.
For those of you keeping track, my attempt at humor so far has focused on how no one cares about what I write. That doesn't mean you are a nobody if you are reading this blog. It just means I don't know how to be funny.
Ranting - Big names don't mean big talent, just a name on a jersey. A name that is famous. Yeah, I pull for the underdog.
Did you know the NFL has talent outside of popular players? You do? Then why did I bother to write this blog? (By the way, this is essentially my position on free agency, though I will repeat myself later. It's what I do. I'm a broken record, and yet I still like to accuse everyone else of being the boring ones).
People I talked about over the last week (you know, so I can raise my score; creative, right? Oh, it's not?)
Teams I mentioned (same reason)
Reviewing the Review
In the blog you are reading now, I wasted your time by promising to deliver a fun entry about how boring I am. You could have come up with better things yourself. If anyone actually reads this, feel free to comment below and hopefully, you can be funnier than I am (or at least more interesting).
Until next week . . .