In a season where the Lions are 5-2, the Titans have won despite throwing for under thirty yards and a regular season game was played in London, the wackiest thing that has taken place so far is the ####ing and crying of the numerous opponents the New England Patriots have run up the score against. That term in and of itself bothers me. At any given time ni a football game, their will be two teams on the field with two seperate agendas. One team wants to score, the other wants to prevent them from scoring. Obvious, right. Apparently not. Certain guys have voiced their distaste for Bill Belichik and his alleged disrespect for the game. Quit crying and suck it up. If you cant stop them, thats your problem. Why should the Patriots go easy on anybody? As i see it, when a team is up and brings in their replacement players, there is no reason not to allow those guys to run an offense as if the game were on the line. The Patriots backup, Matt Cassell, gets no in ga,e experience ever, and rightfylly so. But when that rare oppurtunity arises, why shouldn't A) Matt Cassell get to play real minutes in the game he loves and B) Coach Belichik get to evaluate his backups and decide whether or not they are to his liking? In my opinion, no reasons should be needed to go out and put up points. That is the purpse of an offense, at any time, whether up or down. Bellichik said that in the game of football you never know, but i doubt even he believes that stuff. He has his offense out there when the game is over because he can. In a game where players take pride in who can harm an opponent most, big, beastlike defenders turn into little girls because Tom Brady and Bill Belichik are bullies and are running up the score. With that attitude, you deserve it.

With the recent hold-outs of star players like Lance Briggs, Asaunte Samuel, Larry Johnson, and mini-holdouts of Marc Bulger and Michael Strahan, i could not help but wonder if holding out is really so wrong with set of rules in place in the NFL. The NFL is unique in the sense that contracts are not guaranteed. Players are only assured of the guaranteed part of their contracts and can be cut at any time of their employment with any given team. THat in and of itself is strange. The NBA has a salary cap like football does, yet teams dont have a right to rip up contracts. They can cut a player but they still have to pay the remainder of the contract or they can buy out the remainder of the contract but they can not just cut a player like NFL teams do. If i am not mistaken, there are rarely cases of hold-outs in the NBA. Not only are superstars holding out in the NFL, even unproven rookies are!


One of the main contributing factors in these players' holdouts is the dreaded franchise tag. WIth free agency in place, managers were given the choice to hold onto one player for a season at a time at the average price of the five best players at a given position. At the surface this sounds like a fair trade off. Free agency for the franchise tag. But with the ability of general managers to cut the cord on a player whenever they deem fit, should players be subject to the wrath of the franchise tag?


In order for this nonsense to be stopped i think the NFL's general managers and the players' union need to agree to kiss the franchise tag goodbye in exchange for guaranteeing contracts. Owners may be against this because of the dangers of the NFL and the potential injury that can cut a player's career short, but i think that with the give and take that would take place with the removeal of the tag and guaranteeing of contracts, players would be more willing to sign medium length contracts(3-5 years) as opposed to signing longer contracts(5-8 years).