Posted on: March 28, 2009 10:56 pm
Edited on: March 28, 2009 11:26 pm

Week In Review: Whining, Complaining, and Ranting

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?)

Aaron Rodgers, Brett Favre, Jay Cutler, Albert Haynesworth, Mike McCarthy, Ted Thompson, Duke Preston, Josh McDaniels, Me

Teams I mentioned (same reason)

Redskins, Packers, Titans, Broncos

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 . . .

Posted on: March 25, 2009 1:15 am
Edited on: March 25, 2009 1:28 am

The Penalty Of Safety--The NFL Is Not Fun Anymore

The recent announcement of new rules developed for the coming seasons in an effort to promote safety and reduce injuries has already stirred up controversy among fans and bloggers, and don't expect me to buck the trend.  It is hard to disagree with the main complaints, stemming from the popular interpretation of the acronym "NFL" as "No Fun League."  Safety comes at the expense of the aggressive play that makes football fun to watch and adds more flags to the referrees arsenal.  How many times have we seen plays wiped out by a over-aggressive defensive player in the name of safety?  How many hard hits that fall into the rules are ignored?  It is wrong for the refs to determine the games, especially with past failures.  The more penalties based on judgment calls, the more controversy and outcry from the fans.  Safety comes at the expense of entertainment and forces athletes to exert themselves less, holding back to not get called for an infraction.  Players have to dial down their intensity to the point of becoming a sissy.  Athletes play football with the awarness that any hit could knock them out of the game and have lingering effects.  It is expected.  Why remove the fun for safety's sake?

Before I continue, I should probably review the rules, taking directly from an article found on this website.  They are as follow:

 The initial force of a blindside block can't be delivered by a helmet, forearm or shoulder to an opponent's head or neck. An illegal blindside block will bring a 15-yard penalty.
 Initial contact to the head of a defenseless receiver also will draw a 15-yard penalty.
"Our clear movement is to getting out of the striking in the head area," Pereira said. "We're reading about injuries that say spinal and vertebrae. We've got to try something."
 On kickoffs, no blocking wedge of more than two players will be allowed.
 Also on kickoffs, the kicking team can't have more than five players bunched together pursuing an onside kick.

I could spend time evaluating these rules, but this can be learned by the reader.  It's not the particulars of these rules that this blog is about.  It is what they represent: the continued deprivation of full exertion for the sake of safety.  I can't exactly argue with the concern and the legitamacy of these rules.  My real problem is in the execution of the refs in how they call it and the potential of its effect on the games outcome.  The players need to keep these rules in the back of their mind when they prepare to tackle, block for the kick returner, and pursue an onside kick.  That's a distraction, and having a call missed by a ref or wrongly assessed is irritating.  Maybe I am underestimating the capacity of a the defender to play hard and also play safe, but it boils down to inhibitions that limit aggression.  Again, players know the dangers of the game.  Do they need to be babied?  Injuries happen, and it's okay to want to prevent them, but I doubt it will make a dramatic difference.

Then, I remembered this decision made by the owners, one that I think will be more dangerous.

The NFL plans to extend the season to 17 or 18 games. (paraphrased)

So, the NFL is worried about players being hit too hard, but decide there needs to be more games, which will cause more wear and tear?  Apparently getting hit hard is more dangerous than being hit more frequently over these extra weeks.  16 weeks already takes a toll on players.  Yes, a hit to the head can cause the most immediate damage, but repeated hits can wear down players and result in injuries.  I personally don't see how more games would not take more of a toll on players who now have two more weeks of potential injuries.  True, they'll elminate a few preseason games, which is a mostly acceptable change, but starters never play full games in exhibitions.  These games will count, which means the starters will have to be out there, fully participating for one or two more weeks.  18 weeks of repeated hits, not including playoffs.  Doesn't sound safe to me.  At the very least, players will have to be better conditioned to prepare for a longer season.

But maybe I'm wrong.  It's just an exaggeration on my part.  After all, with the limitations these new rules create, the hits won't be as bad.

That's enough, right?

The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com