The NFC

Who is the best team in the NFC?

I know, stupid question. That's like wondering, "Who was a better interim coach, Michael Cooper or Mike Evans?" Or asking a real Colorado sports fan, "Who do you hate less, Al Davis or Bradlee van Pelt?"

Nonetheless, the question remains. No matter how good you think the Colts, Broncos, Bengals or double-defending champion Patriots are, at least three of those teams will be watching from home Super Bowl Sunday as an inferior squad competes for the NFL championship.

Right now five teams in the NFC have at least 10 wins, and it seems obvious to me that one of them will take the conference crown. (And I do mean one specific team, but we're getting there.) Those teams are: New York, Chicago, Tampa Bay, Carolina, and Seattle.

I was going to say "Those teams are from," but let's face it, if Jersey's Giants are from New York, so am I. Anyway, let's start with the Giants:

The positives: Eli Manning, the No. 1 pick just last year, leads an offense that places sixth in the league. Tiki Barber has played some of the best badminton-wait, make that some of the best football of his career, piling up 1,657 yards, including two games of 200+.

The negatives: Believe it or not, I don't believe in a Manning. Elisha's piled up a ton of yards and thrown a ton of passes, but he's completed just 52.9%. Oh, and the defense ranks 25th in the league.

The outlook: Not a team built for the playoffs. But the rest of the NFC's not a lot better.

Chicago: The positives: The league's best defense in scoring and yardage. Thomas Jones. (Who thought I'd be saying that?)

The negatives: What, you don't know? This team's offense is so bad, they consider Rex Grossman an upgrade at quarterback.

The outlook: Do you remember when the 2001 Bears put together a 13-3 regular season with the same kind of team, then got bounced from the playoffs with a quickness? You know what the difference between these two teams is? Led by Jim Miller, the '01 team had a way better passing attack.

Tampa Bay, the plusses: Give up just 1.7 yards per game more than the Bears, though they allow significantly more points. One of the league's best coaches. Rookie sensation Cadillac Williams, who has been spectacularly good...and bad.

The minuses: My land, is every team in the NFC this one-dimensional? 23rd rated offense, thanks mostly to a quarterbacking corps starring children of privilege Brian Griese and Chris Simms. What, Cooper Manning's not available?

The outlook: Good but not great. Postseason experience (last team outside of New England to win it all) could be an edge for coaching staff and some key players.

Carolina, +: Steve Smith, whose teammates must be grateful he's beating up entire defenses instead of them. Great defense (4th in the league behind the last two teams and the Steelers). I like John Fox a lot. (As a coach! We're not in elementary school.)

-: Not-so-hot offense, outside of Delhomme-to-Smith. Can you believe a team with Stephen Davis and DeShaun Foster has gotten neither over the 1,000-yard mark?

Outlook: Somewhat intriguing, though the unusually-bad running game will probably prevent a deep playoff run.

Seattle: and how: Top record in the NFC at 13-2. On an eleven-game winning streak-last loss was Oct. 2. First in the league in scoring offense and offensive yardage. A consistently spectacular year out of offensive stars Matt Hasselbeck (only one game with more picks than TDs).

Let's not forget the heartwarming story of Shaun Alexander, who has bounced back from an incident late last season in which coach Mike Holmgren plunged a knife deep into his back. While some feared Alexander would never walk again thanks to the blade's proximity to the spinal column, he has bounced back for a league-leading 1807 yards, including eleven 100-yard efforts. In a happy coincidence, he's about to be a free agent.

Less than stellar: Just a little better than middle of the pack defensively, but teams with eleven consecutive victories don't show a lot of weaknesses.

Here's my question: are the Seahawks this good, or is the rest of the conference this bad? They don't seem, on the surface, much different than in years past...and they've been running away with the conference.

Outlook: Heavy favorites as NFC champions. The Seahawks have flown mostly under-the-radar this year-can you imagine the kind of coast-to-coast hype a team like, say, the Colts would get if they won 11 games in a row? Yes, I think you can!

The Seahawks face an easier road to the title game than any AFC entrant could-will that help them come Super Bowl time? Maybe, but then that sounds a lot like the argument people were making for the still-ringless Jason Kidd a few years ago. But there are some AFC teams-namely the Colts and Bengals-that I think the Seahawks match up pretty well with. I'm still going with the AFC for now, but I think Seattle has a real shot.

New coach for the Heat

Stan Van Gundy, coach of the Miami Heat, resigned today, citing the time his job kept him from his family.

The start of the aforelinked article says he "resigned Monday citing family reasons". That's code for: embarrassment over the job his brother is doing in Houston.

In all seriousness, I always have mixed feelings over this kind of thing. If Stan Van Gundy is really leaving so he can spend time with his family, that's great. I mean, I'm sure he can afford to take some time off and that's a positive way to spend it. Family's important to me, too.

At the same time, I'm not a big fan of a coach quitting in the middle of a contract, much less the middle of a season. Any player who tried this would be blasted for the rest of his career. Is being a coach a lot more time-consuming than it was last year? I doubt it. Van Gundy knew what he was getting into.

Besides, shouldn't a coach be held to a higher standard than the athletes because of his position of authority?

But on the other hand, you don't want to keep a coach around if he doesn't want to coach any longer. That's not good for the team, either.

What would be good for the team-and the league-is the return of Pat Riley to the sidelines. Everyone acknowledges the unbelieveable career Phil Jackson has had, but Riley was nothing short of legendary in his own time. He's had the kind of success that immediately demands respect.

Sure, like Jackson, Riley always had great players-but with Dwyane Wade and Shaq, he's covered in that department.

Of course, some of you might be thinking to yourselves, "Hmmm, fantastic coach of the 80s and early 90s...why should this end any better than the return of Joe Gibbs?" Good point, class, but why are the Redskins awful? Two words: Dan Snyder.

Personally, I'm excited to see what the Heat can do if Pat Riley returns as head coach.

See You

Everyone's asked me lately what I think of the Gary Barnett firing, and I have to say: it feels pretty good.

It doesn't feel good because he was a bad coach-the program is in eons better shape than it was under Rick Neuheisel. It doesn't feel good that we got rid of this scumbag-because he's not one. Step aside, Winston Churchill: Gary Barnett is a great man.

I'm not even happy because, after the Terrell Owens situation proved me remarkably pro-labor, Barnett is pocketing $3 million.

No, I'm happy because as a University of Colorado employee, this firing proves that I have basically unlimited job security.

Let's face it, what hasn't Barnett done in the last few years to try to get canned? Claimed blissful unawareness of scandalous recruiting practices? Check. Insult an alleged rape victim? Check. Lose a big game 70-3? Checkmate.

But hey, at least the players are starting to recognize they represent the university and are doing so with class. Um, wait, maybe not.

Observers have been left scratching their heads and asking themselves, "What's it going to take for Gary Barnett to get fired?"

Now they have their answer, though it surely wasn't a rash decision. No one in their right mind thought we had much of a chance against Texas. If Barnett lost his job based primarily on recent on-field results, gruesome as they were, then the athletic director's a total idiot.

I think it's clear the university was waiting to fire him for financial reasons. I'm sure the higher-ups weren't big fans and haven't been for a while.

Barnett is a fine football coach. Though his teams were run-oriented and generally conservative, no one faked punts from anywhere on the field the way we did. And he won a conference championship, which is more than we could say for Mack Brown up to a few weeks ago. Barnett led the Buffs to a BCS bowl and had a decent argument for the national title game after the 2001 season. (That fell apart pretty quickly during the actual Fiesta Bowl, but I swear, Joey Harrington was good back then.) Considering how the program is regarded nationally, I'm not sure we could have expected much or anything more from the team during his time here.

I'm not going to go through the rumored candidates, mostly because I don't know enough about all of them, but I doubt we'll be better off without him on the field.

Off the field, we're definitely due for improvement. After the Katie Hnida remarks, Barnett was a deservedly easy target for those looking to criticize the university. The school is trying to clean up its image both in the athletic department and the university at large-though it's not doing a particularly good job yet.

Yet now that CU has dumped Barnett, the university has silenced half of its critics. That leaves the other half to wonder: "What's it gonna take for Ward Churchill to get fired?"

The peerless Colts

The hot topic, and one it's finally late enough in the season to address appropriately: will the Colts go undefeated and win the Super Bowl, becoming only the second team ever to do so?

No.

Why not? Well, to go undefeated requires three things. First, your team has to be really, really good. Second, your team has to stay really healthy. And third, your schedule has to be really, really easy.

Do the Colts have what it takes?

1. Are the Colts good enough? The '72 Dolphins are never really judged fairly in historical terms-if anything, going undefeated hurt them, because everyone minimizes that as an accomplishment. And the fact that they've shown T.O.-sized egos in retirement doesn't help their case.

I don't think the Dolphins are the best team ever, but they were by far the league's best in 1972. First in offense. First in defense. First in scoring offense. First in scoring defense. Not one but two thousand-yard backs. Am I forgetting anything?

Oh yeah, they won most of those games behind a backup quarterback, Earl Morrall, who sounds like a West Texas oil tycoon. Wait, scratch that one-relying on the backup was probably a blessing, considering the starter was some bespectacled dweeb named Griese.

Anyway, like the Dolphins in days of yore, the Colts have been the best team in the NFL this year, but not by the same margin. The Colts are third in offense and fourth in defense right now. If that sounds impressive, keep in mind that last year's Broncos finished a similar fifth in offense and fourth in defense. The Colts are, however, first in scoring and fourth in points allowed-which is pretty good, but not '72 Dolphins good.

So in a word, no.

2. Are the Colts healthy enough? Injuries are huge, and good teams become great just by avoiding them. (Recent Patriots squads being the obvious exception.) The Colts have been very healthy this year.

And now's probably a good time to point out that Peyton Manning, whom I love to mock for his laughable combination of physical agility and mental toughness, has never missed a game in his career. (Is inagility a word?)

Who knows what kind of depth the Colts have? A few injuries, especially on defense, could submarine them.

Yes (but still pending).

3. Is their schedule easy enough?

Do people really appreciate how easy the Dolphins had it? According to a few-years-old SI.com piece, they had the easiest schedule of any Super Bowl team (which I believe is still correct). Opponents' winning percentage: .367. Mathematically, you'd see that means that opponents would have handed them nine wins all by themselves (not really).

(Before you say-of course their opponents had bad records, they all had to play Miami!-notice how many good teams played rough schedules. And notice how many of those teams were Broncos.)

Well, the Colts haven't done too shabbily for themselves in the schedule department. According to one of the greatest minds/most mediocre Halo players in the universe, the Colts' opponents this year have a winning percentage of just .396.

But...their remaining five opponents combine for a .545 clip, highlighted by a stretch of at 8-3 Jacksonville Dec. 11, hosting 7-4 San Diego the next week, and on the road against 9-2 Seattle Christmas Eve. Anyone who told you the hard part of their schedule was over when they beat the Bengals (?) and Steelers is an idiot.

More to the point, Indy's weakest area, at least according to the numbers, is its run defense. They actually rank a respectable 10th in the league, but that's total yards per game, and the Colts often jump out to big leads and force opponents to abandon the run. Dig a little deeper, and you'll see that the Colts give up 4.4 yards per carry, which is 26th in the league. Did you see that LaDainian Tomlinson is coming to town in that stretch, and the next week they get on a plane to face league-leader Shaun Alexander?

And one more thing: Miami had to win seventeen games in a row to have a perfect year, including the playoffs; Indianapolis has to win almost that many just to get out of the regular season unscathed. Think about it, at 11-0, they're barely past the halfway mark.

Answer: not quite.

That's two nos and a "so far", so I think it's safe to say: the Colts are not going to go undefeated, even just in the regular season.

Having said that, I hope they do, then lose in playoffs, cementing Manning's legacy as a choke artist, as well as muddling the whole perfect season accomplishment just enough to obscure forever the accomplishments of those obnoxious old men.

Oh, and let's not forget one more crucial query: if the Colts are sitting at 13-0 or 14-0 but have clinched home-field, should they continue to play their starters? It's a tough one. Tony Dungy has already said he'd rest his team, because the Super Bowl is the ultimate goal. I'm not sure what Dungy knows about that anyway-perhaps some of his old Buccaneers called him after they got a real coach.

Keep in mind that the most recent team to make a run at this, the '98 Broncos (who made it as far as 13-0), called it a plus when they lost late in the season because it gave them a chance to avoid the perfect season distraction and regain focus. But the Broncos weren't yet resting starters when they lost, and many of the players were holdovers from the '96 team, which rested early and cost itself dearly.

I think resting your players is a bad idea-too much opportunity to get cocky without backing it up. Of course, if Edgerrin James gets hurt and you bow out of the playoffs early, no one's going to care what your regular season record was.

I say you have to go for both. Teams that came close to a perfect season, went for it, and didn't make it-like the '85 Bears, or the aforementioned Broncos-still won the Super Bowl. Teams that rest early often bow out early.

Besides, what kind of championship mentality is, "I don't know about playing football, I don't want anyone to get hurt"? If you're competitive enough to win a Super Bowl, aren't you competitive enough to want to win every game before it?

If the Colts have a shot at an undefeated season and don't go for it, I guarantee they won't win the Super Bowl.

The Rise of Jake Plummer

It's been said that the key to the Broncos' resurgence this season has been the much-improved play of oft-maligned quarterback Jake Plummer.

Wrong!

Hear me out: Plummer's having a fine year. But outside of chucking a few too many picks last year with either hand or "obscene gestures" with just one (is it just me or does obscene gestures sound a lot worse than just saying he flipped a guy off?), he's done almost everything right in Denver. In fact, I'm not sure he's playing any better now than he did his first year here.

Check the numbers:

2003: Went 189-302 (62.6%) for 2182 yards, 15 TDs, and 7 INTs.
2004: Went 303-521 (58.2%) for 4089 yards, 27 TDs, and 20 INTs.
2005: Has gone 160-264 (60.6%) for 1849 yards, 13 TDs, and 3 INTs.

If the 2003 totals look low, you'll remember he missed time due to injuries and postseason preparation. If the 2005 totals look low, it's because the season's not over, genius.

In 2003 the Broncos started out looking tremendous, but got lost when Steve Beuerlein (who I liked) and Danny Kanell (who's never shot anyone) had to fill in. That blew our chance for a home playoff game. Kind of a costly lesson, because I think the key to breaking Mike Shanahan's playoff losing streak would be to host a postseason game. Apparently Mike disagrees; his No. 2 QB this year is a well-known chump.

Considering Plummer was throwing the ball deeper than ever in '04, he was good every year. Last year's picks, though, were especially costly and therefore overly memorable. (Let's not forget that he showcased his inability to discern jerseys in Arizona, as well.) He's avoided turnovers almost completely this year.

But Plummer playing well is not much of a change. (Besides, we're 21st in the league in passing offense anyway.)

What has worked right? Well, the Broncos' overall rankings are aboutwhere they were a few weeks ago when I went through them-we still stop the run and can run on anybody despite giving carries to two backs.

If you know your Broncos history, you'd expect a tandem backfield to work out like it did when Sammy Winder was spelled by Gerald Wilhite and Gene Lang. Usually when you split the load, the runners have an average of about 6.0-but that's not yards per carry, it's time in the forty. Yet Mike Anderson (4.5 per carry for 669 yards) and Tatum Bell (6.3 for 606), both of whom are on pace for thousand-yard seasons (though it won't end like that), have been consistent while still making their own kinds of big plays.

I can't shake the feeling that we the Broncos have been a little lucky, but then I don't expect much of a dropoff. After blowing out what's left of the New York Jets franchise this Sunday, expect your Thanksgiving to include watching Denver tear through the history-rich Cowboys like an ethnic studies professor through the history of actual cowboys. (To be fair, Dallas leads the division-but it's Drew Bledsoe and it's not 1995 any more, you know?)

We have a mildly challenging schedule the rest of the year-at K.C, home against the Ravens, at Bills, then at home on Christmas Eve because the Raiders didn't get enough last week, and finally at San Diego. While I'd like to predict a first-round playoff bye, I can't help but be blown away by Pittsburgh having our record (7-2) despite playing Tommy Maddox.

Speaking of Broncos history...let's just say Maddox has a 32.6 rating this year, which is bad even for him. It would be his worst ever-if he hadn't once gone 6-for-23 with three interceptions for a season in New York. I am not kidding, he had a quarterback rating of zero. Anyway, this is all a long way of making fun of Tommy and saying the Steelers will once again snag the first-round bye, though we're still on pace in the AFC West.

(Which reminds me, if the Colts stay atop the AFC, that could clear the way for a Tony Dungy-Bill Cowher AFC title game. I mean, someone has to win that game, right? It might take a dozen overtimes but dang it, somebody's going to the Super Bowl. Aren't they?)

On T.O. and the Eagles

Today you're getting what I think is a first: two posts in one day from Hole Punch Sports!

As you have probably already heard, as we do not break news here at Hole Punch Sports, is that Terrell Owens is suspended for three more games and will not play again this season.

This comes on the heels of the announcement over the weekend that another Eagles wide receiver, Brian Westbrook, received a $30 million extension from the club. Apparently the Eagles do renogotiate before a contract's up.

(Of course, Westbrook is actually a running back, something he's done a pretty awful job of this year-3.5 per carry, on pace for under 700 rushing yards. But he could end up with nearly a thousand yards receiving.)

Owens' contract controversy has already been covered splendidly on this website. However, despite all the dire predictions before the year started, T.O. didn't hold out of any actual games, and was playing some of the best football of his career.

T.O.'s frustration this season is understandable, considering how the press harps on him for every little thing (though he of course invites the attention) while guys like McNabb and Westbrook receive a free ride.

Let's take McNabb, who's been overrated his whole career thanks not to race but to fabulous teammates (especially on defense). Face it, he's a punk. After playing miserably in the endgame of last year's Super Bowl, McNabb seemed to have no problem taking veiled potshots at T.O. for wanting more money all offseason, coming off as the classy, team-oriented guy and improving his endorsement-related earning potential. Oh, by the way, McNabb's in the middle of a 12-year, $115 million contract. Of course he's happy with his deal.

Let's not forget that before Owens joined the team, McNabb averaged a paltry 6.16 yards per attempt in his career. We'll see if he can keep up his play of the last two seasons. (Of course, McNabb had below-average receivers early in his career...but a) so did Tom Brady, and b) what do you think he's left with now?)

McNabb was mobile before T.O. came to town, but he's hurt now and probably won't be running much.

But this isn't about McNabb. Terrell Owens definitely crossed the line with his attitude and words, though not often with his actions. While his performance in last year's Super Bowl wasn't as incredible as some made it sound, he did make an incredible recovery from that disgusting ankle injury. He's been in top form all year despite being on the wrong side of 30 in a very young man's game.

However, he does make himself bigger than the team, got in a fistfight with Hugh Douglas (whose job title of choice is the best part of this whole story), and blasted the organization recently for not giving him his props. Let's not forget his constant McNabb-bashing, which is odd considering how badly he wanted to play with McNabb after years of teaming up with Jeff Garcia (in other words, never let Terrell Owens be your general manager). He probably deserved to get suspended, though the forever thing seems a little over the top.

He's a big distraction. But last I checked, the NFL is all about winning. And getting rid of maybe the league's most dangerous receiver isn't a good step towards that goal.

Are the Eagles better off without him? Unquestionably, no.

The Eagles got to the Super Bowl without Terrell Owens on the field in the playoffs, you say. That's true. But it's not like Owens didn't contribute-the team got home-field advantage and got to rest their players for the postseason in large part due to Owens' play.

And you've got to think the attitude he brought to the team last year helped them get over the NFC title game hump.

Without Owens, Philadelphia's passing attack becomes weaker, and its pathetic run game will be even more exposed. Philly's offense is somehow eighth in the league, but don't expect that to last.

Of course, off the field, the Eagles have improved. It will be nice for the players not to be distracted. It must be so annoying being asked all those questions. I'm sure McNabb will enjoy returning to his criticism-free lifestyle. And the Eagles will return to what they do best, and that's the business of winning football games.

I hope my tone tells you I don't think it'll help to have him gone. What do you think?

Control of the AFC

This football season, like all of them, has been a blessing for me.

The Broncos are a game up in the division (though San Diego's closing and K.C. has held pace) and one of my family's schools is in the national-title hunt (Texas, still in it after a narrow 62-0 win at Baylor), but the best part has been the schedule. Almost none of the Broncos games have been on when I'm at church or otherwise occupied.

And even though this was the Broncos' bye week, the week also features a matchup of my favorite non-Broncos NFL rivalry, tonight's game pitting the Indianapolis Colts against the New England Patriots.

Well, we use "rivalry" in its loosest sense here.

Patriots-Colts is a rivalry on par with Globetrotters-Generals, Germany-France, or Enron-business ethics. Or even pre-2004 Red Sox-Yankees.

The Colts can't beat the Patriots. Not when it matters, and not when it doesn't. Unless it's somewhere other than a scoreboard.

The Colts always field a fantastic, explosive offense-until they play the Patriots and look like a junior varsity high school team. They take chances downfield all season long, but no one ever makes them pay-until the Patriots strip the ball, or Ty Law grabs three interceptions in a postseason showdown.

The Colts aren't the most physical team, but, like the "Greatest Show on Turf" St. Louis Rams of a few seasons ago (and didn't the Patriots stop that one, too?), possess enough talent to intimidate opponents on skill alone.

Colts quarterback Peyton Manning would be a nearly-unstoppable one-man offensive juggernaut all by himself, but surrounded by the tough-as-nails Edgerrin James and world-class receivers, he's even more dangerous-49 touchdown passes last year, which, if you haven't heard and I know you have, just happens to be the all-time NFL single-season record. That's better than any season Montana, Graham, Unitas, Elway, Marino, Young, Warner, Aikman, Namath, and all the rest have ever managed. Manning's still in the prime of his career, but he's already mentioned with all those legends. He can't run, but with his lightning-quick release, he also can't be stopped.

Until he faces New England and puts up a 69.3 passer rating, like he did in last year's AFC playoffs.

It's been said for years that the Patriots are a group of no-ego guys who play together as a team, and that's what led to three Super Bowl wins in the last four years. That might be true, but lost in that is the idea that the Patriots have had some incredibly talented players to go with the peerless coaching staff.

And every year, this rivalry ends like Terrell Owens-public relations. The Patriots have beaten the Colts six times in a row and keep sending them home, to the dismay of highlight-loving experts everywhere.

But going in to each of those games, the Patriots have, to seasoned observers, looked at least as good as the Colts. It's different this time.

The Colts are 7-0 and have been invincible all season, especially in their last four games (average score over that stretch: 36-15). Peyton's numbers are down but still fantastic (anyone who actually expected him to break the touchdown record twice in a row is an idiot anyway), and oh, by the way, the Colts play defense now.

The Patriots, meanwhile, are hurting. Linebacker Tedy Bruschi just came back from suffering a stroke, but the team has been cycling through starters like never before. New England's at 4-3 and atop the AFC East, but they're hanging by a thread. They've been outscored by 21 points this year.

Maybe it'll be time to write off the champs after what should be a thrilling contest. Either the Colts officially take control of the AFC and finally legitimize their Super Bowl aspirations, or the Patriots knock down the upstarts again and show their dynasty has a few moments left.

Apart from home-field advantage, conditions could not be more favorable for Indy. But I say Wal-Mart beats Mom & Pop again. Pats 23, Colts 17.

Nuggets back in action!

All right, I've lived off the non-glory of the Broncos' loss long enough, it's time to update this website and move on to the Nuggets.

We/I at Hole Punch move on with a heavy heart, because it feels like the Finals ended about a month ago, and sometimes it seems like the NBA is all I ever talk about here. (And in the middle of football season!)

Anyway, the Denver Nuggets open their season tonight in San Antonio (8 p.m. Eastern on TNT) against the defending champion Spurs, which is to say, we're looking at starting the season off at 0-1, especially with coach George Karl out for the first two games.

The question this year is, what will the carryover be for the George Karl effect? Returning primarily the same roster that finished last season with a flourish, the Nuggets look to build on the momentum and contend in the West this year.

A few key points, and a bunch of questions:

Strengths: The Nuggets are strong in the same areas they've been for the last two playoff seasons: namely, unusual frontcourt depth and the ability, when the spirit moves them, to run anyone out of the building.

Marcus Camby and Kenyon Martin anchor a solid-rebounding and plus-defensive effort, and off the bench Nene nee Hilario is one of the league's best big-man reserves. And you might have heard of the other forward, Carmelo Anthony.

An already-potent point guard corps of Andre Miller and the Earl of Boykins was strengthened with the somewhat-curious addition of the Earl of Watson, late of the Memphis Grizzlies. At least it looks curious, considering Miller is a solid starter and Boykins is worthy off big minutes in reserve.

But late last season, Karl often played Miller and Boykins together to spark the offense. The acquisition of Watson is a good sign the Nuggets plan to play two point guards often this season and shows a commitment to the up-tempo game.

Weaknesses: The most glaring weakness last season was the complete lack of outside shooting following the loss of Voshon Lenard to a torn Achilles tendon. Indeed, you could say outside shooting was our Achilles' heel last year, but that's just lame. Anyway, the late-season pickup of Wesley Person mitigated that loss somewhat.

Lenard returns to the lineup this year (Person is gone), but will remain one of the last options in the offense. Will he be remembered in the half-court?

The Nuggets can put up points in bunches when they run, but when games slow down, they occasionally have a tough time scoring. But they'll be better this year than last, thanks to the return of Lenard and the continued development of Carmelo Anthony.

The other question (and it may seem odd given the Nuggets' aforementioned frontcourt depth): can the Nuggets rebound effectively against elite teams? The Spurs beat on us the boards by about five per game in last year's playoff series. And defensive rebounding is the key to a running offense.

Carmelo: Can Carmelo start the season with a bang, or will he play his way into shape like he has the past two seasons? Word on the street is that Anthony is ready to rumble this time around; but I recall hearing that last year, too.

Carmelo remains the key for the franchise, which is unsurprising considering how little the roster has changed. He's a fantastic finisher on the break as well as our best low-post and midrange offensive option. Will he continue to give an honest effort defensively? Can he be counted on in clutch situations? Has his jumper improved any? And will he continue to develop into a tougher rebounder, without jeopardizing his open court opportunities?

I think Carmelo will have a fantastic season and score in the mid-twenties per game, in addition to regaining his rookie year late-game mojo. He won't be a stopper defensively, nor will we ask him to be, but expect him to play hard enough to earn big minutes.

The Division: As I mentioned in an earlier post, Sports Illustrated predicts the Nuggets to finish with the No. 2 seed in the West and a division crown. While that seeding looks really high to a longtime Nuggets fan such as myself, the division win is very realistic-which would make us top three in any event.

Our competition in the Northwest is Portland, Minnesota, Utah, and Seattle. Seattle's good, Utah's dangerous when healthy, and I think Minnesota could bounce back from last season, if they can get any kind of decent point guard play out of Troy Hudson and Marko Jaric (okay, maybe I don't think they can bounce back).

In other words, we're in a sort-of deep division, but we ought to win it anyway (not unlike the Broncos in the AFC West).

The Coach: George Karl turned last season around; can he keep it rolling? He demands a lot from his players, which usually ends in them tuning him out for an underachieving finish to his tenure, but he's still early in his stay here. While I didn't think he was much of a pickup back in the day, he proved to be more than worth it. There are better coaches in the league (Phil Jackson, Larry Brown, and Gregg Popovich are all definitely a cut above), but he's as good as anyone in the division (I can't stand Jerry Sloan.)

The Outlook: To my own surprise and after a little research, I pretty much have to go with Sports Illustrated here. Barring major injury, the Nuggets will win the division. I'll say 54-28, and wouldn't that be great! I don't know what seed that will give us, but who really cares?

What do you think?

Broncos-Giants preview!

Happenings in the three major sports this weekend: Game One of The 2005 WhoCares.Com Bowl, also known as the World Series, is tomorrow. (Seriously, it's time for baseball to swipe that BCS from college football. Yes, it's backwards, but a) it guarantees a recognizable matchup and b) so is baseball.)

The Sports Illustrated NBA season preview hits mailboxes and newsstands. The issue is notable only for its props to the Earl of Boykins, whose team it predicts to finish No. 2 (!) in the West.

And finally, a full slate of NFL games, which brings us to Broncos-Giants.

Now's a good time to point out that I missed something kind of big in the AFC West forecast earlier this week; namely, the Broncos' winning streak is even less impressive than my man Marvelous made it out to be. Why? Because in the last five weeks, the Broncos have already played half of their home games. That's right, four of the five wins came at Mile High II, meaning only four home dates the rest of the season.

Even worse, though our road schedule isn't quite brutal, it is loaded with quality teams-the Cowboys, Chargers and Bills joining Sunday's Giants. I know, that looks odd, but the Cowboys and Bills lead or are tied for the lead in their divisions.

But Sunday's game will tell us a lot more about the Broncos.

Anyway, the matchups:

Broncos Offense vs. Giants Defense: This should be a high-scoring game. The Broncos have been fantastic running the ball and only okay passing it this year, but the Giants' D is 31st in the league. Unless Jake Plummer pulls a Brett Favre and starts giving the Giants sacks on purpose-and you never know with that guy-the Broncos have a great chance to build on last week's breakout passing performance.

And the way the Broncos backfield has been performing, expect them to pile up big gains on the ground as well.

Edge: Broncos

Giants Offense vs. Broncos Defense: The Giants' 29.8 points per game leads the whole league right now, proving that the ability to produce gee-whiz regular season offensive statistics is passed on genetically. In all seriousness, neither the Giants' running or passing game has been spectacular enough on its own to really merit that kind of scoring, but a good return game has been helpful (and we're getting to that).

The Broncos' defense, despite it's also-low ranking, gives up eighty fewer yards per game than New York's, but is weak against the pass, New York's strong suit. If the Broncos can make the Giants one-dimensional-and that's sort of been Denver's M.O. all year-they might be able to slow New York. But playing on the road, that's a lot to ask.

Edge: Giants

Special Teams: Both teams have pretty solid kicking games. Denver has an edge on everyone in punting, though New York isn't far behind. New York's kicker, Jay Feely, has not missed a field goal or PAT this year. Jason Elam has five misses already but can still be dangerous in crunch time.

But the Giants' return game vastly outranks Denver's, with a kick and a punt returned for touchdowns already this season. The Broncos, of course, have none, though they can break that streak if they can remember to only keep eleven players on the field at a time.

Edge: Giants

Outlook: The Broncos fly in to New York on a five-game winning streak, but are looking at their toughest test so far (Miami notwithstanding). While I of course don't believe in Eli Manning, the Broncos will need a big game from Plummer to negate the likely home-field and field-position advantages. And he hasn't carried the team on his shoulders in a while.

It hurts to guess, but: Giants 27, Broncos 24.

The Division

Sweet! The power just went out and I lost the start to this beautiful post, so here we go again on our tour of the AFC West.

Here's the short of it: Denver and San Diego will compete for the division title. Kansas City is in second but still has the same old defense, and Oakland still has the same old one-dimensional offense.

As for the long version, well...

Denver (5-1): The Broncos wisely heeded the advice of what is surely Coach Shanahan's favorite website and focused on their multifaceted rushing attack to return to prominence.

Led by the power of Mike Anderson and the elusive speed of Tatum Bell, the Broncos have propelled their way up the league rushing charts, currently standing in third place with 153 yards per game.

Unsurprisingly, this has led to a five-game winning streak (ignore that I wrote that column when the Broncs were already one game into the streak). Who is the man now?

The Broncos have played better than recent final scores would indicate, jumping out to big leads and then letting teams get back into the game. Hopefully that's an indication of the teams we've played (when Tom Brady makes things interesting, it doesn't necessarily mean everyone can) more than a season-long trend.

However, the defense remains a cause for minor concern. While the effort against the run has been steadfast (fifth in the league), the typically porous aerial defense is still Denver's Achilles heel. But you'd expect Denver to give up a lot of passing yards-no team has had more passes attempted against them.

Kansas City (3-2): The record looks pleasant enough, but Kansas City is even less dangerous than their reputation. The Chiefs have long been known for their explosive offense and Wal-Mart-quality defense.

Not so this season. Kansas City's offense ranks fifteenth in the league, the lowest in the AFC West. However, the gap between them and San Diego, the division's top offense, is less than ten yards a game, and Kansas City scores more per game than Denver and Oakland. The point being that while K.C.'s offense is solid, it's also not good enough to separate them from the pack...yet.

However, in a storyline familiar to the team's fans, the Chiefs' more pressing need is a defense-they're 30th overall in the league and giving up 278 yards per contest through the air.

As if they needed it, the Chiefs' schedule is about to get a little tougher, too. Don't expect Kansas City to remain in contention for much longer.

San Diego (3-3): San Diego has just a .500 record, but has played better than that typically indicates. The Chargers hammered the defending champion La-li-lu-le-lo and nearly beat Pittsburgh a week ago.

Statistically, the Chargers and Broncos are almost eerily similar. The Broncos and Chargers are right next to each other in the rankings for rushing offense (Denver 3rd and S.D. 4th), total defense (22nd and 21st), and pass defense (26th and 27th), and very close in almost every other offensive and defensive yardage total.

Also like the Broncos, the Chargers began the season not giving their rushing offense (led by the league's best back, LaDainian Tomlinson), the attention it deserved-but they've recovered and are now scoring more than 29 points per game.

The Chargers have been the division's most consistent squad, with a four-point loss to Dallas in the first week their worst defeat.

The Broncos' main edge in this race is their two-game lead in the division. But if the Chargers can keep up their heads up despite close losses (and sneak a win or two out against their toughest opponents), they'll gain enough ground to make this very interesting.

Oakland (1-4): Ah, the Raiders. They haven't been this fun to watch since that Super Bowl against Tampa Bay.

For once, an Oakland Raiders offseason pickup has paid off. Randy Moss has been straight cash, averaging 24.5 yards per catch. He's on pace for almost fifteen hundred receiving yards this year despite missing most of the end of last week's loss to the Chargers.

In addition, Kerry Collins has cut down on the mistakes. No, seriously, he has-with just one pick so far, Collins is on pace for well over four thousand yards passing.

So what's the problem?

Oakland's priorities this off-season were to shore up the defense and get some semblance of a run game. How'd that turn out? Well, Oakland's 28th overall in defense and LaMont Jordan has picked up only 3.6 yards per carry.

Typical Raiders. Just remember: November 13th in Oakland, Christmas Eve at Mile High.

Sorry We're Late...

It's awfully cheap to pick a World Series winner after the games have started, I know.

Thing is, I've been too lazy to update this recently, so you'll just have to trust that I picked my team before the postseason started.

But I don't really care if you believe me, because I don't expect to be right. First, I didn't follow baseball much at all this year, and second, baseball's playoffs are so unpredictable, I'd be lucky to be right even if I did.

Having said all that, I think the Saint Louis Cardinals will be your 2005 World Series Champions!

But I could be happy with a few teams winning, and a lot less happy with others. So instead of making wildly incorrect predictions, here's my picks in order of who I want to win (not who I think will) from most-wanted to least:

1. St. Louis: Because I just picked them and I enjoy being right. (Not to get all cocky here, but Hole Punch Sports has never predicted a champion incorrectly. I have to say that now because it can't last.) Also, the Cardinals have my all-time favorite player in Larry Walker, a rare baseball star who, in his prime, was actually fun to watch. In Colorado, he was a ferocious hitter, Coors Field notwithstanding, but my favorite Walker memories will always be of him gunning down baserunners at third from all the way in the cheap seats.

2. Boston: I've always liked Boston, though I never felt right calling myself a Red Sox fan simply because I never bought in to the whole woe-is-we syndrome. I just liked Nomar and Pedro Martinez. In fact, my favorite time watching the Red Sox was not the World Series, but rather Pedro shrugging off injury and pitching six innings of no-hit relief in the last game of the 1999 ALDS. Easily the most clutch baseball performance I've ever seen.

Man, I'm getting all misty-eyed about the past here. I guess that's how you can tell it's a baseball column.

3. Atlanta: I've got no particular love for the Braves, but my best friend is a Braves fan, so there you go. It is nice to see Andruw Jones, with whom I kind of share a name, hitting up to his ridiculous potential.

Since it was sort of a topic recently with the NCAA thing, I have to say I'm not offended by the name "Braves"-of course, why would I be?-but even this cracker thinks it's insane/hilarious-if-you-get-what-I-mean that in 2005 there's a football team called the "Redskins".

4. Padres: I would be rooting for the Padres like a madman if they had finished the season under .500. There's nothing like a statistical abberation to upset old-school baseball fans, and I would have loved to see that. More to the point, what angle do sportswriters take after a team that barely wins half its games takes the title? You can't write those old-school, heart-of-a-champion stories about a squad that barely qualified for the playoffs, can you? Especially in a sport where the regular season basically used to be the playoffs. That would have been fun.

5. Chicago (AL): Obviously it's not the Cubs in the playoffs, but whatever. I pretty much have no opinion here, but if the city of Chicago never wins another championship, they still got to watch Michael Jordan, so I'll never feel bad for them. (Through the magic of television I, too, watched Michael Jordan, but there's something about having it be your hometown team.)

6. Houston: I don't care much here, either, but Roger Clemens and Andy Pettite really annoy me. Especially Clemens-I get it, he works hard; he's probably the only athlete that does that. I'm sure natural talent has nothing to do with it. (Obviously, he's maximized his talent and that's respectable-but he's not the only pitcher with an exercise routine.)

Pettite I shouldn't mind as much. I hate the Yankees like every decent person, but every playoffs you could count on him to start a key game, then give up eight runs in three-and-two-thirds. So in a way, he was kind of my favorite Yankee.

7. The Los Angeles-Sacramento-San Jose Angels of the Greater Anaheim and San Diego Water Conservation District: The only team in major sports history to win a championship by openly admitting they couldn't compete. Barry Bonds was blasting every pitch in sight in the 2003 playoffs and finally shedding his undeserved reputation as a choke artist. The Angels saw this, took a step back and said, you know what, we can't stop this guy, and, with pitchers acting like pioneer children, walked and walked and walked aaaaaaaaaand walked him.

Yes, it's in the rules, and it obviously helped them win, but let's be practical. When the rule that allowed walks was instituted whenever it was in the 1800s, I'm sure it wasn't to slow down good hitters, but to move the game along and make pitchers throw strikes. I'd rather lose like a man than win by avoiding competition through an outdated loophole.

(And I'm not going to buy the "Who cares, Bonds was cheating" unless you can prove to me that none of the Angels used steroids.)

8. New York (AL): As much as I hate them, at least we can rest assured that having the biggest payroll won't, once again, buy a title. How do I know this? Because I have a friend who's a Yankees fan, and he insists that Shawn Chacon is going to be unstoppable after a solid half of a regular season. Well, I'm from Colorado, chump, and while I certainly wanted and maybe even expected Chacon to turn out, you've got to be kidding me.

See you guys next year!

A second chance

At the risk of revealing myself as the idiot I am, I did something stupid this weekend and now wish to brag.

So Saturday I moved in to a new apartment. Nice little setup, comes with a detached garage. I've never parked in a garage before, at least not regularly. Anyway, Saturday night I got my car, grabbed the garage door opener, and pulled in.

There's no clip on the back of the opener, I noticed, but figured I could just leave it in the car somewhere, so I did. On the way out, I pushed the button on the garage itself (not on the opener) to close it up, and carefully avoid tripping that sensor which would have made me start all over. (As long as we're telling dumb garage stories, when I was a kid and before my parents had that safety sensor, I used to push the garage door button, which was located by the door into the house, then race out, touch one of the lines on the driveway, and try to dive or roll back under the door before the thing crushed me. I now realize this course of action was unwise.)

You follow? My garage door opener was now in the car in the closed and detached garage.

Anyway, Sunday morning I wake up and one of my first thoughts about getting to church is: wait a second, how am I going to get back in the garage? I'd noticed the day before that there was no other door to get in there. In my morning stupor, I threw on some clothes, ran out there, and confirmed what I'd already suspected.

Yep, I was locked out.

I frantically tried calling everywhere at the complex, but its offices were closed (curious; what kind of place is closed at 7 a.m. on a Sunday?) Then I tried opening the garage with my apartment key. Surprise! It didn't work.

That was no good. Eventually I caught a ride from my neighbors and showed up about two hours later than I was supposed to, but whatever. (Fortunately, the offices were open by the time I got back, saving me the trouble of having to purchase a new car.)

My point is, everyone makes mistakes. Like the dog in the Bar None commercials says, everyone deserves a second chance.

And I'm willing to write off Denver's loss to Miami last week as a mistake. As I was telling everyone all week, the Broncos could not have played or been coached any worse, and it wasn't going to happen again (or did you forget Marty Schottenheimer was coming to town?)

The Broncos responded with an important win yesterday-or, rather, by avoiding a crushing loss. There were some worrying signs, though, like the too-many-men-on-the-field penalty that nullified a special-teams touchdown, or the offensive line's inability to protect Plummer at the end of the first half, or even Elam's missed kicks (though the announcers' calling his 60-ish percent accuracy from outside of 50 yards "automatic" was pretty comical, too).

There's still one huge change the Broncos need to make to right the ship. That change is huge, and it's obvious. What's Denver been known for over the last ten years? That's right, the anyone-can-be-a-thousand-yard back thing.

The Broncos need to get back to the running game.

I think the Broncos' downfall the last few years has not really been coaching, but personnel blunders. The Broncos have been a good if inconsistent squad. But the coaching staff this year has puzzlingly given up on what Denver offenses do best.

The Broncos have been behind a lot in this young season, but have abandoned their rushing attack much sooner than prudence demands. By the time they were down 6-3 to the Dolphins in the third quarter in the first week, the team had essentially abandoned any attempts at running, even though it was not yet time to panic. And this was a game when we needed to get physical. How do you get physical on offense? By pounding the ball.

Yesterday, the Broncos were down 14-3 at the half, then pulled closer on Bailey's TD to make it a four-point game. Yet until the final drive, the team made only token efforts at running the ball.

On the last drive, the team put the ball in Ron Dayne's hands. If you're a regular at Hole Punch Sports, you know what confidence that gives us. But Dayne responded in a terrific fashion, and Shanahan rediscovered his aggressiveness long enough to make an absolutely brilliant fourth-down call on the pitch to Dayne, who picked up ten yards behind Rod Smith's tremendous block.

But this was just one effective drive in a season of offensive struggles. Plummer has already attempted 85 passes this year against the team's 46 rushing tries. Factor in sacks and scrambles, and the Broncos are calling pass plays more than 65 percent of the time.

To be fair, the Broncos' running as a whole has been shoddy. The team is picking up just 3.7 yards per carry, which is terrible for Denver and not very good for anybody (20th in the league).

Which would almost be relevant if Plummer's passer rating wasn't 59.9. As bad as the Broncos might be running the ball, they're even worse throwing it.

Besides, a rushing attack sometimes takes patience. You don't really find the holes in the defense until the second half. But the best way to start finding them early is to attack early.

And yes, Mike Anderson has battled injuries. While I've never believed the Broncos can plug in anyone, Dayne's clutch performance almost has me believing it. In any event, if the backups can't go, why are they on the team? (Of course, my commitment to the running game would have extended to retaining the services of Clinton Portis, but that's a topic for a different day.) If the backup du jour can't be trusted to pound away, it's time to find a new backup. Injuries have never stopped the Broncos' running game before.

The Broncos have to re-emphasize their rushing attack to re-establish themselves as playoff contenders. Run early, run hard, and run often.

Anything else would be a mistake.

Good ol' college sports

With so much going on in the world, it's refreshing to see college sports have retained their unique mixture of discipline and fair-mindedness.

First up is Adrian Peterson, star tailback for the Oklahoma Sooners. A devastating runner with breakaway ability, Peterson should have won the Heisman last year over the weak-armed Matt Leinart-except we all know million-dollar talent that translates to the pro level automatically excludes one from Hesiman consideration.

Anyway, Peterson up and got himself suspended from practice Monday and Tuesday for skipping class. According to university policy, Peterson would have had to have racked up four unexcused absences to get that kind of suspension.

Now I know the guy's a football player and academics are clearly in the backseat of his automobile of priorities (yes, thank you, thank you), but being an athlete means he also knows the policy. It seems a little early in the semester to be ditching that often, but what do I know?

What I absolutely love is the punishment. Like the article says, Peterson is still allowed to attend team meetings. In other words, this punishment is completely in the school's best interest-sure, practice is important, but considering the heavy workload he'll have this year, it's probably better at this point to limit his wear-and-tear by sitting him out. And by attending meetings and learning the game plan, he'll still be part of the team.

At least the punishment fits the crime almost perfectly. Picture Peterson sauntering in to coach Bob Stoops' office. I can see Stoops trying to keep a straight face as he reads him the riot act. "So, you like taking days off, do you? How about you take some days off from practice, too!"

"Coach, no!"

Now his start Saturday is in jeopardy. I wonder if he'll show a great attitude all week and attend his classes the next three days? Even if he doesn't, we've all seen enough college football to know a star back can be benched at kickoff and still wind up with 35 carries.

(It hasn't been a good week for players I once supported for the Heisman. Or did you not hear about Larry Johnson?)

Honestly, though, who cares about Peterson? Puzzling enforcement of academic standards is nothing new. Then again, neither is the NCAA acting in the absolute worst interest of student-athletes.

As you may have heard, NCAA president Myles Brand recently announced that the organization will enforce its rule about Division I transfer-athletes in some major sports sitting out a year if their former university does not grant them a release. Not that notable, maybe, except that he was talking about Hurricane Katrina victims who might try to attend other schools now.

That's fair. The last thing we want for young people whose lives have been enormously disrupted is a chance to move on.

Of course, there's another side to this, that of the schools. Obviously, no university wants its athletic department decimated by wholesale departures, especially if big groups of players from the same sport switch to the same new school. Or as Brand so eloquently put it, "Let me call that athletic looting, to be provocative, and we won't stand for that."

I am glad he is comparing the hurricane tragedy to the hurricane tragedy while remaining so blissfully unaware of the whole human tragedy part. First of all, just about every sensible person I've heard is okay with the looting to the extent that people are grabbing food, water, and other needed supplies. Second though, the problem with looting in general is that it's stealing someone else's possesions. Last I checked, the athletes made a commitment, but they are not anyone's property. I'm as white as the iMac I'm typing this on, but it's plain even to me how this could be seen as racist, conisdering it'll mostly affect African-American athletes. (That's definitely not to say I believe Brand actually hates minorities in his heart or anything like that.)

Of course, players can still get around sitting out a year if their coaches will release them. Considering it was coaches who urged the NCAA to be stringent here, it's tough to see that happening on a large scale. No, I expect to see the universities function the way they always have.

In an uncertain world, it's nice to know we'll always have college sports as our beacon of stability.

It's on

Some fans are crazy. I mean, I thought I was excited for the NFL to come back.

My roommate shattered this illusion yesterday night. You may recall him from previous posts as a big-time Nets, Angels, and Raiders fan.

When he walked in to the house an hour or so before the game, he couldn't hold back a "Woo!" and other random expressions of glee. Amen. The NFL is back! If you weren't a little excited, I'm sure Alex Sudreth would be happy to help you find your way back to your home country.

Anyway, he was bouncing around the house, making phone calls, pacing from room to room, and shouting "Woo!" every few minutes. Not during the game, but for the entire hour leading up to it.

It was odd. And then the game started. He'd had a phone call last through the start of the kickoff, which he then resumed by calling his friend back after the second play from scrimmage. And he only increased in enthusiasm as the game got underway.

I don't know how I could live with a Raiders fan like that all year. I guess that's why I'm moving. And since I just realized this story has no point, let's move on to my thoughts from the game.

- During the pre-game show, the ESPN analysts were talking about how Tom Brady is underrated. Championships are important, they argued, and while Brady doesn't roll off your tongue when you list great quarterbacks the way, say, Donovan McNabb does, he should definitely start being considered in the top two or three of NFL quarterbacks. What?

For the last time, Brady is in the top one of NFL quarterbacks, and has been for years. McNabb is good, fun to watch, seems to be a good guy and all that, but as a quarterback he's nowhere near Brady, who proved it with more than two hundred yards passing and two touchdowns by halftime.

To me, the first drive was a microcosm of how Brady performs. He overthrew his receiver on the first two first downs, but atoned with a pair of perfect passes to Ben Watson to convert on third each time. He's not perfect, and of course no one really is, but as soon as the stakes get high, he produces. Almost every single time.

- Before the game, Oakland's horrific defense was discussed, but to me there is no question the key to their season is Kerry Collins. Collins has a cannon arm, but what he's been blessed with in physical talent he makes up for with inaccuracy and let's-call-it-curious decision making. (Last night in the fourth quarter, he was overthrowing receivers deep downfield while throwing off his back foot. Impressive, but stupid.) Lamont Jordan should deliver a respectable run game, and with Moss and Porter the Raiders could have a terrific aerial attack, but Collins has to get the ball to them. Based on his 153:154 career touchdown to interception ratio, I'm going to go out a limb here and predict that's not going to happen consistently (though he and Moss will make some real highlights).

I can see giving this guy a chance ten years ago. But Collins is not going to get any better. Then again, I guess in 1995 you might have been excited to have Norv Turner as your coach, too.

- As for the Patriots, their biggest problem could be the loss of Tedy Bruschi. Forget the coordinators, he was one of the very best players in the league. The defense was good but not great last night, and against a real quarterback, they could have some problems. Can the Pats win a third Super Bowl in a row? I think they certainly can, but while I do think they're still the best team, at this point I'd take the field, if that makes any sense.

- When your roommates get on your nerves, it is a good idea to pull out brochures from apartment complexes you've been visiting...but you've got to keep the lights on or nobody's going to notice. But for all I know, that light hasn't had a bulb in it for a couple months now.

- Were those commercials terrible or what? In the first half alone, we had a confusing ad about the Patriots signing a Pepsi machine to play for them and a classic UnderArmour spot wherein the homespun squad had to defeat a team called, and I am not making this up, Goliath. I think that was supposed to be symbolic of something but I couldn't quite put my finger on what.

The coup de grace was an ad for "Commander-in-Chief", the new drama starring Geena Davis, who if you couldn't tell from the title, becomes President. As the commercial told us, "For the first time in history, a woman will be President." No, she won't! It's so lame to act like your TV show has actual historical significance. I mean, what a victory for women, who have so often been treated like second-class citizens in this country. Now they have a TV show to celebrate their rise to the Presidency! Too bad the ads almost mock the fact that it's never actually happened.

Also, considering there's not a man in America who's going to watch that show, why was it advertised during the NFL opener anyway?

- Y'all already know I despise John Madden's videogame, but as always, his analysis was killing me last night. An example: as the Pats drove for the touchdown to take the lead at 10-7, we saw a quick replay of a New England pass play. As Madden said, "It all starts with pass protection." And the New England O-line looked like a bunch of All-Pros on that play for sure, perhaps because the Raiders put on the most vanilla three-man pass rush against New England's five blockers. Wow, nice! What a bunch of fighters! They had enough men to double-team only the defensive ends, but somehow still gave Brady enough time to find the open man.

- By the way, my roommate consoled himself after that touchdown with the phrase, "Life is still great." With the NFL back, I have to agree.

The problem with college football is...

One grating aspect of sports coverage is when leagues discuss rule changes and the experts come out of the woodwork. You know who I'm talking about-the wiseguys who pump out columns with rule changes so sensible, you almost forget they're either pointless or completely unrealistic.

So often the proposed changes would only slightly improve the experience for fans, rather than drawing in any new viewers. Writers say things like: "If baseball really wanted to be more successful, they'd do something about all that standing around." Granted, there are too many moments in any game when a pitcher's attempting his fifteenth straight pickoff throw, but there's no way that an arbitrary limit to the number of pickoff throws, for example, is really going to change people's mind about the sport in general.

What really gets me is that it's one of the most popular sports that has all the problems. That's college football. Fun to watch it may be, but it also unifies almost all of the biggest problems from every major sports league. Fortunately, college football fans are nice enough to casually disregard each of these issues.

You don't believe me?

1) Like hockey stars, college football players don't think they get paid enough.

And they may be right. I used to care about whether college football players got paid outside of their scholarships; then I remembered I'm not one. Like most fans, I don't care. Is it an injustice that colleges make money off some of the players? I guess, though almost everyone with a job is really just stacking up the cash for the person above them. (I have a government job, but I'm talking about the rest of you.)

There are obviously some players who bring in the big bucks. These guys are usually the same men who go on to make millions in the NFL, so it's almost fair (though I'd hate to be told, "Don't worry, there's a chance your next job'll make up for this). But there's just as clearly a huge crop of guys who not only don't deserve any extra dough, they shouldn't be on scholarship to begin with. Which brings us to our next issue:

2) Like college basketball, college football has way too many untalented players.

Even the top college hoops squads have that one "defensive specialist" who plays thirty minutes a night but only averages like three points per game. Teamwork is great, but don't forget that guys are often out there only because of a good attitude.

College football isn't exactly loaded, either. Part of the excitement of the game is that almost anything can and will happen. In a close contest, you never know how the game is going to end-an interception, a punt return, a massive offensive drive, and a blocked kick are all not only possible, but almost likely. But then that's the problem. The fluke plays don't happen as often in the pros, because most of those guys can do their jobs competently.

What always sticks out to me are the kickers. How often do bad special teams decide a game? I always recall this California-BYU game I attended as a freshman. The Cal kicker was lining up for what I think was a field goal but of about PAT distance. Well, he ended up shaking the stadium foundations with the brick he fired into the uprights. This is entertainment?

Fans get carried away with the "I could've done that", but man, I can miss a field goal!

3) Like major league baseball, college football has a testing problem.

You've been blind if you don't see what's going on here. Shortstops hitting 40 homers a season, players having career years at 38, the home run record falling seemingly every other month-baseball has a steroid problem it's known about for years.

(One thing I like about the steroid controversy is when writers make it really, really obvious whom they're writing about, but yet are too chicken to actually name the guy. Sort of like what I just did.)

College football has a testing problem, too. Not steroids, though. I'm talking about school exams. Granted, many players really do try to learn, but we also know that tons of players don't want to go to class. This leads to widespread corruption by desperate coaches and pathetic athlete-friendly instructors. The obvious solution: stop making players go to class. To my professor brother: I'm only kidding.

Seriously, though, if your favorite team has special assistants who only write term papers, and a list of teachers without the guts to fail a star, your team is a bunch of cheaters, just like Raffy P. Do college football fans care? What do you think?

(On a side note about the steroids, has anyone here heard about the new Blitz videogame? After the NFL sold its exclusive license/soul to the John Madden franchise, Midway responded with a completely over-the-top look at pro football that's due out in a few months. For example, you're going to have players thrown in jail during the season, and one team has a quarterback named "Mexico". One fun feature is the chance to use steroids to boost performance or get an injured player back on the field more quickly. Anyway, I told you all this so I could post this screenshot, where you can check out one of the available drug choices.)

4) Like major league baseball, college football has a huge competitive imbalance.

This one's legit. Everyone, myself definitely included, hates the Yankees (and if you don't, you better be from New York). They spend more than anyone in an attempt to buy championships. Sensible fans see that other squads, like the Red Sox, do exactly the same thing. But teams run by tightwads often don't have a prayer.

Same thing in college football. What's the difference between the Yankees and, say, USC? It's the same few juggernauts every year that have a realistic chance at the title in both sports. Most schools will never sniff a title, not unlike most baseball teams.

Does this bother anyone? Are you crazy? On the contrary, who doesn't love watching a Heisman hopeful score six touchdowns in one half against Southeastern Nebraska State?

5) Like pro basketball, college football is all about the star system.

What's wrong with the NBA? Aside from the idea that if you're a fan, there's a player out there right now looking to climb into the bleachers and cold-cock you, the most common complaint leveled against pro hoops is the idea that there's no teamwork anymore. It's always one guy isolated on one side while the rest of the team hides behind the three-point line in the opposite corner, critics say.

How is college football any different? Obviously, you can't line up a guy on one side and let the other ten keep the D distracted. But when a team gets its hands on a future NFL star, they'll install whatever gimmicky one-dimensional offense they can to force-feed him the ball (sometimes even when he's not a future star, just a quarterback at Texas Tech). I remember reading before the Virginia Tech-Florida State national title game in 2000 that Seminole coaches had devised something like 28 different ways to get Peter Warrick the ball. This is teamwork?

"Well, you oughta give your best player the ball." Isn't that what NBA teams are doing?

6) Like the NFL, college football hasn't started yet.

Bring it on!

Five mini-columns

In this in-between time at the start of football and late-but-not-that-late in the everlasting baseball season, there's not any one topic that stands out, so I thought I'd give you my well thought out opinions on five things in sports (originally ten, but I let No. 3 run so long that I thought I'd cut it short (having now finished this, I realize the word short is out of place here)). This probably means I'll have nothing to write about for weeks, so enjoy.

Keep in mind that a) I came up with this list at 2 a.m. this morning (I couldn't sleep and I'm not kidding; you have no idea the kind of pressure that comes with running this website) and b) I'm still not making any money off this, so if it makes no sense, blame yourself (which, interestingly enough, also makes no sense).

And we're off!

1) Maurice Clarett vs. Ohio State: Before you skip down to No. 2, which I would certainly do in your position, hear me out. There is actually a little timeliness to the whole "Is Maurice is a big crybaby tattle-tale?" issue.

First of all, I'm not very happy with people who tell right now, as I got in trouble for messing up the big conference this week at work by not showing up on time to help. The person who complained/told on me missed three salient points: First, everyone got started on time; second, everything worked just fine; and third, I actually was there.

Second, this was a topic up for debate on the local sports radio station (AM 950 THE FAN!) as I was driving home yesterday. One guy, whom I assume must have been a caller (I didn't listen very long), assured us that Ohio State and society at large had actually failed Clarett by coddling him at a young age and then later revoking those privileges. The host, meanwhile, argued that Clarett turned his back on his teammates and threw the Ohio State football program under the bus when he went public with all the under-the-table dealings he'd been part of.

Fools! First, I seriously doubt that Clarett had been taken care of so well that it warped his entire of sense of right and wrong to the point where no one should hold him accountable for his actions. Second, if Clarett really was the only or one of the very few to accept extra benefits in violation of NCAA rules, yes, he did kind of screw over his teammates, but I really doubt that was the case.

I have two points. One, while I've been ragging on Clarett since we drafted him, there's no need to make him out to be worse than he is years after the fact, and second, you don't have to assign blame: both sides obviously messed up.

2) The Avs sign Brad May: Is this a "slap in the face" to Steve Moore, who's still trying to recover from Todd Bertuzzi's heinous attack?

For anyone who doesn't know, May was a teammate of Bertuzzi who said before the cheapest of all cheap shots, "There's definitely a bounty on [Moore's] head. Clean hit or not, that's our best player and you respond. It's going to be fun when we get him."

Keep in mind two things: one, he was talking about retaliating for a hit Moore had laid on Markus Naslund. Not that that makes Bertuzzi's attack acceptable at all, but hockey players are constantly going after each other for stuff that happened in previous games (or have we all forgotten the height of the Avs-Red Wings rivalry?). And second, May said it before the attack. He said they'd get Moore back and it would be fun (and I imagine it probably is fun to dish out vengeance on the ice, most of the time), not, "I wholeheartedly endorse any bad thing that ever happens to Steve Moore."

I still wouldn't have signed May if only due to the PR ramifications, but the Avalanche as a franchise have been, overall, very supportive of Moore.

The real slap in the face, of course, is that Bertuzzi got off pretty easy, serving a 20-game suspension for the rest of the 2004 season and then staying home all of last year like every other player, which apparently was all justice demands.

3) The Eagles and Terrell Owens: (if you're not sick of this already)

Let there be no doubt: The Philadelphia Eagles are a bunch of cheapskates. In the several years before the Owens and Jevon Kearse signings, the Eagles finished seasons with millions of dollars of cap room but were too cheap to sign the players they needed to get to or win the Super Bowl (and this is a team that had free agent visits from backs like Antowain Smith and Priest Holmes early in their run).

Granted, with the big Mormon's clock management skills and Donovan McNabb's dry heaving, they may well not have won a Super Bowl either way, but at least they should have tried. Owens might be home from camp for skipping an autograph session, but it's the Eagles organization that has been truly awful to its fans. Say what you want about the effectiveness of the Broncos' decisions, but you can't say they're not trying.

I was solely in Owens' corner after reading an article by Michael Silver of SI.com which said the Eagles forced him to sign an injury waiver realeasing them from liability before letting him play in the Super Bowl. I'd link to it, but they took the article down, as this accusation proved to be, ahem, completely false. Yet I'm still with Owens.

Please don't give me the "he's only one year into a seven-year deal he signed willingly" garbage. First of all, no NFL contract of that length lasts the whole way. Second of all, it's not guaranteed, and without salary cap ramifications, the Eagles would cut him in a second (as they, like many NFL teams, have proven with heartless cuts in the past).

Spare me the even worse, "Let this guy try pouring concrete fifty hours a week, then we'll see how he complains" argument (and it's cousin, the "What about the guys in Iraq?" comparison, to which we all fall short). First of all, if you're at all a part of unionized labor, I don't see how you can look down on the guy. Second of all, shouldn't working stiffs be glad that one of their own (in the loosest sense, I know) might get more money out of the very corporation that still employs him at a profit?

Yes, he should be grateful just to have a job. Why do we assume he's not? If you could get a salary increase by skipping work, wouldn't you do that? If you pass on that opportunity, well, you're an idiot.

Of course, I stand up for Owens and put down Peyton Manning. Here's the difference: the Eagles have the cap room to pay Owens, whereas Manning's deal is so mind-numbingly huge that it affects everyone else on the roster. And second, Manning has pretty much the most off-the-field earning potential of anyone in the NFL, and none of those endorsements count against the cap, so he has an opportunity to take a little less, do something for his team, and still be richer than everyone.

For all we know, Owens' career basically ended last year. He may never come all the way back from his injury, so I understand the Eagles' hesitance to pay him as much as I understand why he wants all his money now. As much as he showboats and demands the spotlight, it's not like any of this is new. The Eagles should have seen this coming. The easiest way to take care of it is to pay the man; but I doubt they'll do that.

I love Andy Reid's "we can win without him" statements. What does Reid know about winning? For all I can tell, he's coached a ton of teams that didn't quite live up to their potential. He could use all the help he can get.

4) Rafael Palmeiro's a dirty cheater. Hall of Fame? Discuss: I know, I know, another "yes, we get it" topic.

If you can't guess, I'm a little skeptical about his assertion that he just started accidentally taking steroids the year testing came into effect. Silly me, that just doesn't add up. I do miss the days when Palmeiro and his Viagra endorsement were the butt of every performance-enhancer joke-I honestly never got sick of those.

And I agree with Frank Deford (who is probably my favorite sportswriter, by the way) that the punishments are still absurdly weak.

But I disagree with Rick Reilly (I'd link but you have to be a subscriber to see it anyway), who wrote this week that baseball writers who don't keep steroid users out of the Hall have no guts. This seems to imply that voting against Palmeiro in a few years takes some kind of moral courage, when it does nothing of the sort.

Personally, while taking steroids is something I'll never understand (I don't think "doing whatever it takes to win", by the way, is a respectable sign of competitiveness; if anything, it's an acknowledgement that your own legitimate best would never be good enough), the fact remains it wasn't against the rules until now. It is against the law, however, but frankly I don't know how the Hall of Fame bylaws treat that.

Besides, if the horrific side effects are true, Palmeiro's already going to get what's coming to him (in the long run, who really cares if he makes the Hall of Fame?), while, on the other hand, if Dr. Canseco is correct, then years from now we'll all wonder what the fuss was about.

5) The release of Madden 06: Count me out among those who embrace both this game's cultural significance and its quality. While it's cute when writers from ESPN.com praise the series, it's also a little ironic, considering that the dominance of Madden spelled the end of the ESPN NFL series.

Of course, I'm also bitter, because my favorite modern football video game (I say modern because Tecmo Bowl will always be the bomb as far as I'm concerned) was ESPN NFL 2K5, and the NFL's and NFLPA's exclusive licensing arrangements with Electronic Arts, the company that publishes Madden, ensure there will be no ESPN NFL this year. (Not that Madden's totally awful...I, ahem, played more than a hundred games of Madden 2003.)

In all seriousness, though, EA is a company that seems to employ some questionable business practices, such as buying up every videogame developer in sight (which I don't like, but can't really argue with) and allegedly forcing a lot of employees to log unpaid overtime (a scandal close to my heart, as it became public thanks largely to a blog posting).

Here's my question: how many of the football fans lining up to buy the newest Madden and stuff EA's pockets are the same people accusing Terrell Owens of unfettered greed?

Training Camp Questions: The Rip-Off Edition

Now that we're a week into Broncos training camp, it's time for me to run the standard "Five Questions the Broncos Must Answer in Camp" feature, though they're really more related to the regular season than the camp itself. Today Sports Illustrated's website ran a similar article, except it was five statements, not questions. See, pretending someone actually asked me these questions allows mfor responses heavy on opinion and light on facts.

1. Who will start at running back?
As Marvelous nee Pugs recently pointed out, the Post just ran an article saying how well Ron Dayne's running style meshes with Denver's zone-blocking/break-their-knees scheme.

That's a joke, right?

Even when Ron Dayne was "good", he wasn't that good. He's finished each of his professional seasons with a 3.4 yards per carry average, except in 2001, when he notched a career-best 3.8. Still, the Giants managed to find room in their offense to hand him the ball nearly 600 times.

Do the Broncos have a better line and running game than the Giants? No question. Not that anyone was putting eight in the box to stop Dayne, but with Giant quarterbacks like Kerry Collins and Eli Manning, they certainly could have. So he should be better. But Dayne is not the power back you'd expect from his size, and he should not end up the Broncos' starter this year.

Mike Anderson returns from an injury sustained when Coach Shamnahan wisely left him in in the fourth quarter of an exhibiton game last year. He's supposedly listed at No. 1 on the chart (the somewhat-official denverbroncos.com chart is a little out of date), but questions naturally remain. Namely, can he still be effective at his age? (He turns 32 in September.) Anderson got a late start to his career so he won't have the wear-and-tear of younger backs, unless you're the kind of weirdo who considers season-ending injuries "wear-and-tear".

Quentin Griffin has shown flashes, along with an annoying habit of being compared to Barry Sanders, but he's the anti-Kobe when it comes to actually holding on to the ball. Then again, Shanahan stuck with the admittedly-superior Clinton Portis through fumble trouble, so Griffin probably has a better shot at starting than most fans give him.

Maurice Clarett I've bashed enough on this site. Since he hasn't played in a long time, I honestly don't know how he'll perform-though it's probably safe to say that practice is helpful for most players. Probably a year away if he will contribute; but then, Shanahan has trusted rookies in the past (Portis, T.D., Anderson, and Gary).

My guess as the most likely opening-day starter is Tatum Bell, who battles hands problems of his own. Nevertheless, he combines speed and just enough elusiveness to call to mind recent successful Denver backs.

Whoever wins the competition, know that they'll rush for 1,000 yards without a doubt, har de har. You can plug anyone into that system and run the ball effectively. Or maybe not.

2. Who will be the Broncos backup quarterback?

Or, more specifically, why do the Broncos insist on giving themselves such pathetic options here? With Danny Kanell, Bradlee van Pelt, and Matt Mauck all jockeying for position beyond the mercurial Jake Plummer, the Broncos are pretty much willing to stake their entire season on Plummer's durability. (And never mind his oft-erratic performances.)

In his eight seasons, Plummer has started every game four times, so there's a fifty-fifty chance we'll have to rely on one of these guys for a stretch (anyone who knows statistics knows it's not really a 50-50 chance and that I just lied to you, ahem). Our defense may be solid, but it won't be good enough to win with any of those guys for any extended period.

Hopefully, the team can keep Plummer away from any demanding physical activity.

3. How are the special teams shaping up?

The last few years the most glaring weakness on the Broncos has been their complete unwillingness to address special teams. Year in and year out, it seems, we field statistically-dominating offenses and defenses and completely ignore the field-position game, while recent teams to emphasize it (the '00 Ravens, '01 Patriots, '03 Panthers) make trips to the Super Bowl.

Of course, not every team that addresses special teams ends up playing for the championship-but it can't hurt. For the Broncos, they've addressed the needs in some ways and not in others.

New punter Todd Sauerbrun is one of the league's top performers in terms of both gross and, more importantly, net average, and could be an important weapon this year. But the kickoff situation is up in the air-will the Broncos carry a specialist, like late-rounder Paul Edinger, to cover for Elam's decline? Elam is still one of the world's finest field goal kickers, even in crunch time.

And the loss of Reuben Droughns, and the chance that Rod Smith probably won't be fielding punts anymore, leaves the Broncos without proven returners.

4. How will the Broncos' aging receiving corps fare?

Rod Smith is old, Ashley Lelie is still one-dimensional (though at least he's hanging on to those deep balls now), and we bent over backwards to bring back tight end Jeb Putzier, who somehow had 36 catches for 572 yards last year, literally none of which I can remember. He must have been tearing it up when I was in church, I guess.

The X-factor, of course, is Darius Watts. Watts was impressive in camp last year and made some acrobatic grabs during the season, but he's best known for his drops. Will he improve fast enough to make the receiving corps a potential strength?

All right, I didn't mention a certain older gentleman, but I think Jerry Rice is the finest fourth receiver we've had in years.

5. How will the defense look?

It's tough to say. While we made some questionable/bizaree pickups on the defensive line, we also picked up a Pro Bowler in the return of Trevor Pryce, who barely players last season.

The linebacking corps should be improved with the continued development of D.J. Williams and the reacquisition of Ian Gold.

The defensive secondary returns two Pro Bowlers: John Lynch, whom I always feel guilty about rooting for, and Champ Bailey, who was terrible. Can Champ be that bad again? I doubt it, so there's room for optimism. But after the loss of Kelly Herndon, the rest of the secondary is young and ripe for Peyton's postseason stat-padding.

While the speedy linebacking corps and endless wave of mediocre D-linemen should prove effective against the run, it will take a near-miracle for the Broncos to slow down the best passing teams this year.

HPS looks back on a week of Colorado glory

Rockies: The biggest news is the trade of Shawn Chacon to the New York Yankees. The Rockies got a pair of double-A pitchers out of the deal. The question the article I linked to posed was, doesn't this contradict our build-from-within philosophy? Let me be the first to say: what a stupid question. Who cares? Dan O'Dowd's response was that it strengthens our youth movement.

Is that going to be the explanation for every Rockies move, and for how much longer? Not that I've lost patience in this specific plan, any more than that I never believed in it, but younger is not always the same as better. I mean, Chacon's 27, so he ought to have some decent years left. How far in the future are we building for?

More to the point, how far out of his prime will Todd Helton be by the time these guys are ready to contribute? I think he'll be the last superstar we have for a while at this rate, so we ought to make use of him. It'll be at least a few years before these guys can be counted on to pitch consistently, won't it? (They are, after all, Double-A pitchers the Yankees were willing to part with to get their hands on Shawn Chacon.)

I don't know anything about the younger guys, so I'd have a hard time evaluating this trade strictly on its baseball merits. I can see why the Rockies would get frustrated with and trade Chacon-not that he's a terrible pitcher, but in sort of that Jake Plummer fashion where he shows flashes of brilliance mixed in with his mediocrity.

Nuggets: The biggest Nuggets news this week, of course, was the news that coach George Karl was diagnosed with prostate cancer around the start of the Spurs series. He underwent successful surgery Thursday. I just hope I didn't say anything overboard-mean about his coaching at the time.

He's said to have a good shot at a quick recovery and should be able to coach this season.

Broncos (new and improved website): Yee haw, training camp is upon us. If anyone cares, all the draft picks signed on time, easily the dumbest "story" I have to endure every year. Maurice Clarett signed a Ricky Williams-esque deal, which is to say he's not making much money (the minimum this year) unless he plays and plays well. Some sports fans think that's the way it ought to be, but I don't really begrudge the guys their money. Don't worry about him: Maurice has a few years left on his Ohio State deal anyway. (All right, that's enough.)

Anyway, if Clarett does dominate, he can clean up under this contract. And he apparently has no doubts he will. As his agent told the Rocky Mountain News in a very apt comparison, "They thought Christopher Columbus was crazy, too."

The Post ran an nearly-informative story today about Jake Plummer: "Third year critical for Plummer." First of all, wasn't last year supposed to be the critical year?

And second of all, shouldn't that article be about Champ Bailey? Yes, Champ ended up in the Pro Bowl, which all voters take very seriously, but he also had a great view of some spectacular opposing touchdowns last year. To me, he has the most to prove of any Bronco this season.

Anyway, back to Plummer: who knows how he'll do this year? His first season here, he was fantastic if not quite in perfect health. Last year, he turned the ball over like crazy. What do you guys think he'll do? And why don't we have a reliable backup yet?

Embrace the Star System

Last week one of my roommates and I were debating the impact of the loss of Larry Brown on the Pistons' hopes next season.

My roommate thought Detroit would fall far, finishing no higher than fifth in the East, a number I'm certain he plucked out of thin air.

I asked him, who's better? Miami? Who else?

My roommate's a delusional Nets fan, so he threw New Jersey on the table, which I of course consider ridiculous. (He's also a huge Angels and Raiders supporter, so you may correctly guess we don't agree on a lot sports-wise.) Why New Jersey? Well, they still have Kidd and Vincent, but they also added Shareef Abdur-Rahim, whom my roommate calls a 20-and-10 guy who never played on a winning team.

I inquired, whose fault is that?

My roommate later corrected himself and said Abdur-Rahim is a 20-and-8 guy, which is close enough to true, but even further illustrates the point: if he was a better rebounder, maybe his teams would win a little more often.

Anyway, I'm not here to talk about the New Jersey Nets and their playoff prospects next season.

No, I'm here to talk about superstars. (Meaning Abdur-Rahim no longer factors into the discussion.)

Sports are all about teamwork, you say. Parents put their kids on teams to teach them about unselfishness and working together. Or to learn how to suck it up when you have to do things you hate, such as when my parents kept putting me on soccer teams instead in a sport I actually wanted to play, like football.

Yet for all the virtuous lessons, and especially at the youth level, the team with the best individual player is almost always going to win.

And if you're the best player on your team, and your team can't cut it, well, it's probably your fault. It's not that simple, of course, but it's often close, especially in football and basketball.

There's a reason superstars get the big money. Yes, they put fans in the seats. But even more, it's the promise of winning that packs the house.

Let's face it, championship teams are almost always defined by that one truly great player. Shaq. Michael Jordan. John Elway. Tom Brady. Ray Lewis. Tim Duncan. Joe Montana. Stockton. Oh, whoops, scratch that last one.

If you remember my earlier meniton of Larry Brown before all this meandering, you're probably thinking, what a second, what about the Detroit Pistons? They won it all in 2004, and they did it with a team, not as stars, thereby proving once and for all that a great team beats individual talent every day of the week.

Yeah.

First of all, the Pistons are the exception that proves the rule. No, I don't know have any idea what that means. But I don't see how one fluke year-a series the Lakers easily should have won, had Kobe kept his ego in check and let Shaq shoot a little more-disproves most of basketball history to that point.

People say the same thing about the Patriots and their three-out-of-four Super Bowls run, but that's even more ridiculous, because the Patriots are actually loaded with individual talent. Tom Brady is the best quarterback in the NFL, hands down. Corey Dillon has long been one of the league's very best running backs. And Tedy Bruschi, last year, was probably the best linebacker in the world-and he certainly was the best come playoff time.

Don't forget Ty Law.

Of course, not every great player wins it all every time. There are a lot more factors that go into winning-quality of the supporting cast, quality of the opposition, injuries, age, et cetera.

But clutch performance isn't limited to the Super Bowl or the NBA Finals. Often, a player provides glimpses of his greatness with triumphs in earlier postseason rounds.

A good local example is John Elway. First, let me state my completely unbiased opinion that he is the greatest quarterback of all time.

With that out of the way, he took the Broncos to three Super Bowls in his early years and lost three times. He lost to absolutely loaded New York and San Francisco teams, and also to Washington, which had a fantastic if occasionally forgotten run. But he did get to the Super Bowl; this despite playing on a team that featured offensive weaponry like Sammy Winder and the Three Amigos.

At the end of his career, he got back to the game twice and won both. At the time, a lot of the credit was given to Terrell Davis and even more to Mike Shanahan, because you see it was the coaching that finally got Elway over the top.

Six years and no playoff wins later for Shanahan, you don't hear that argument much anymore.

Perhaps fans and analysts should have considered his entire body of work a little more closely before labelling him a choker. In his fourth season, he led "The Drive"; clearly not the work of someone who can't handle pressure.

Let me reiterate: this was in his fourth season (and I'm aware this column is rapidly devolving into Elway hero-worship). To put that into perspective, do you think David Carr will save his team's Super Bowl hopes with a late game-saving drive on the road this season?

But Elway did just fine in playoff games early in his career, and as soon as the odds weren't overwhelmingly stacked against him, he won it all.

This theory doesn't hold for baseball, by the way, mostly because it's such a democratic sport. Forget empirical evidence, I've yet to collect any compelling anecdotal evidence that baseball players make each other better, except possibly for a great pitcher who can pitch a lot of innings or in very tight situations and take the pressure off the rest of the staff-a guy like Curt Schilling or a young Mariano Rivera, for example.

How well a guy handles the pressure doesn't seem to change over time. So allow me to make some snap judgements on famous players.

Can they handle the pressure or can't they?

Here we go:

Brett Favre: Favre hold the record for MVP awards and won a Super Bowl early in his career. But the last few years he has put up some horrific playoff games. He's not winning another title with that team, but I'm not sure he would on any but the most stacked defensive squad.

Tom Brady: Just because he's the best doesn't make him infallible-don't forget that interception he threw in the end zone late in the Super Bowl against the Panthers. But his postseason record is perfect, and even though that can't last and he may never win another Super Bowl (nothing against him, I just appreciate that it's an incredibly hard thing to do), expect him to put up many more clutch performances.

Peyton Manning: The anti-Brady. King of the meaningless regular season statistics; lowly pauper in the playoffs-unless you think forty-nine touchdown passes while running up the score is some kind of impressive accomplishment. And his three playoff wins have come up against pathetic competition: two Broncos teams with serious issues and the 2003 Kansas City Chiefs, who practically begged you to score so they could get the ball back.

Michael Vick: Here's a man who is always a) oversimplified and b) called "electric". He's either the worst passer in the game, or the most amazing talent ever to grace it, instead of a more fair and true middle ground of both. He's won his first playoff game both years he's gone to the postseason, only to lose to the Eagles each time. As overrated as I think he sometimes is (come on, do announcers have to talk about him during games the Falcons aren't even a part of?), I am impressed with his win at Lambeau in the snow. And the Falcons have been competitive whenever he's started. I'll label him a winner for now.

Donovan McNabb: A bit of a tough one. He led his teams deep into the playoffs very early in his career. However, his innacuracy borders on comical, and his inability to notice time running out in the Super Bowl plants him firmly on solid choking ground.

Kevin Garnett: Another tough one. Puts up massive numbers every year, always takes responsibility, seems to be a nice, stand-up guy, and was stabbed in the back by selfish teammates last year). But it took him forever to win a playoff series (yes, his team was often the lower seed, but I say again: whose fault is that?), and he hasn't any memorable postseason efforts. I'd say he's more likely to tense up and misfire under pressure, but he's the one guy I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt.

Jason Kidd: Give me a break. Wins close playoff games against horrific Eastern conference teams with no backbone, then falls apart in the Finals faster than a political debate with Alex Sudreth. Sorry, but he chokes.

Tim Duncan: One relatively bad Finals can't undo years of performance. He'll come through in the future.

If you disagree or want my opinion on anyone else, go to the comments, of course. And I apologize for not having that Broncos/Rockies rundown last week, but a) I had a four-hour meeting Friday and was pretty much spent afterwards, and b) nothing particularly cool happened last week anyway.