Selective enforcement of OTA rules needs to stop; soccer vs. NFL mail
Ravens, Raiders lost OTA practices after breaking the rules
When it comes down to it, all NFL teams push the rules in offseason
Soccer fans fill up the mailbag with why their sport is more exciting than NFL
Selective enforcement has become the rule rather than the exception in certain facets of the NFL, and it really needs to stop. The latest example of this practice came to light when the Baltimore Ravens, one of the most respected organizations in the league, lost the right to hold their final four OTA spring practices as a result of both overzealous practices and having their players spend more time at the facility than NFL teams are allowed under the current Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Just about every team in the NFL, with rare exceptions, practices at a tempo during these minicamps that exceeds what is supposed to be allowed. Offseason practices without pads are supposed to be conducted at a level that is "conducive to learning and not result in a situation in which two players are physically competing with one another."
Some may argue that because news came down Thursday that the Oakland Raiders will lose two OTA practices as a result of too much contact at their practices means the NFL and NFLPA aren't selectively enforcing anything. I disagree.
All of the blame shouldn't necessarily rest on the teams themselves. A lot of times the players are told to practice at a good tempo but to protect each other and be smart. That sounds simple enough until the players look up and see that most of the periods are being filmed. Film means evaluation, which necessarily leads to every player doing just a little more than the man across from them so that they look better when the coaches and scouts sit down to evaluate the tape.
That leads to more and more contact and sometimes fights, which brings up another point. The Jacksonville Jaguars had some fights break out in one of their recent OTAs. That doesn't just happen; something prompts that type of behavior. And that something is contact, yet the Jaguars remain unscathed, to this point, in the NFL and NFLPA's selective enforcement process.
Maybe the Jags aren't getting busted because none of their own players turned them in, as is often the case in these situations. So maybe it isn't selective enforcement at all but rather a matter of which teams have players who are willing to let it be known that their team is not operating within the parameters of the CBA. And if a team has players who are blowing the whistle on some of their practices, that could bring up an entirely different set of issues.
Very interesting article on Tom Brady, but I don't understand the premise. This is all based on speculation and "unnamed sources in the Brady camp." Bill Polian of Indy has said they may not get the Peyton Manning deal done until after the season -- this can't make Manning happy either? Perhaps both teams face the same challenges? Maybe it's just that simple?
--Greg, Charlottesville, Va.
Many of you asked for clarification regarding the situations in Indy and New England, and I think that is fair. The biggest difference is there is a report out that Brady and his camp are not happy with the situation and lack of negotiations to this point. To date, we have not heard that from anyone in Manning's camp. Couple that with Brady's public comments that were far from the "there is nothing to worry about, everything is great, and I am going to sign a long-term deal with the Patriots very shortly," and it seems to me that things are not all good. I just don't understand the Pats strategy on this one.
Last line of your Brady article: "If he did, maybe that person would ask him why he is ticking off the guy that made Belichick what he is in the first place." Spoken like a former player. Maybe Bill Belichick made Brady what he is. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Seems I remember Belichick having some success in the league prior to Brady. Can the same be said for Brady?
--Jim Ousley, Mansfield, Ohio
We had an awesome debate about this very topic recently on Sirius NFL Radio. Chicken and the egg may be a good way to phrase it but Brady has always been successful, and I believe he would be successful elsewhere. On the other hand, Belichick has yet to prove he can get to the playoffs and win without Brady. I guess what it comes down to is if you told me in 2000, knowing what I know now, that I could either have Brady or Belichick for the next 10 years, I'd take Brady. I'd pick the Hall of Fame quarterback over the Hall of Fame coach any day of the week.
You challenged someone to explain why soccer is more exciting than football. I won't be able to do that in an e-mail, but let me give you some help so you can appreciate the game. Find a soccer fan and play FIFA on PlayStation3 for a couple weeks. You'll really start to understand pacing, formations and how the game flows.
I was like you and tried to watch soccer and just couldn't -- painfully boring. Until I got a roommate and we started playing FIFA. Now I watch religiously and am part of that small group that definitely agrees that soccer is more exciting than football. Not even a contest anymore.
--Eric, Englewood, Colo.
So now you want me to play video games to appreciate soccer more? No thanks. Most of the e-mails I got about my soccer remark in last week's mailbag column had two main arguments.
The first is that soccer is continuous action whereas American football has too many breaks and stoppages. I can see that argument but my problem is that when I watch soccer, I don't see a whole lot of what I would call action, even if the players are jogging around continuously.
The other argument focused on how popular the game is worldwide. There is certainly some merit to that but I don't think a lot of those people have been properly exposed to American football or really understand it. If they had been involved with it since they were younger and American football was a big deal in their culture, they'd embrace it. Maybe more so than soccer.
Just because you claim to have played a little "soccer" doesn't give you any credibility criticizing the real football. You obviously never played at the pro level or even amateur level. I mean you must be so right that 3 billion people in this world enjoy a boring activity. American football is sooooo fun that the XFL, NFL Europa folded in a few years. It is NOT a sport when a 300-pound human being is out there on the field. There is no true athleticism except for a few players on each side. I wouldn't judge soccer -- you obviously wish to have the body of a soccer player.
There are some 300-pound defensive linemen in the NFL who are the best athletes I have ever seen in my life, being able to do what they do at that size. Julius Peppers is one real freak who comes to mind. And no thanks on the body of the soccer player, either. I think big is beautiful and so does my wife.