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.
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Friday, November 18, 2005
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?)
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?)
Monday, November 7, 2005
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?
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 1, 2005
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)