Broncos season in review

49ers kicker Joe Nedney just beat the Broncos in overtime with a Rich Karlis-esque field goal. No playoffs this year for Denver, who lost 26-23 and finished the year at 9-7.

That back-and-forth yet ultimately unsatisfying game was a microcosm of the Broncos' season. Let's take a look back at the year:

Biggest hangover from last season: Loss of home-field. (Jake Plummer, of course, runs a close second.) After squandering the AFC Championship at Invesco last year, the team followed up with a 4-4 mark at home this season. Some of that was scheduling-the Broncos hosted and lost to the Colts, Seahawks, and Chargers this year-but it's pretty weird for a team that plays at such a high elevation to win more games on the road than at home.

Rookie of the year: Elvis Dumervil. I said after last year's loss to Pittsburgh that our biggest need was an improved pass rush. The Broncos made major strides towards solidifying their pass defense for years to come with the fourth-round selection of Dumervil, who exceeded everyone's expectations but my own and finished with eight and a half sacks. (Does the high sack count mean he'll follow Trevor Pryce, Reggie Hayward, and Bert Berry out of town?)

Most missed departure: Gary Kubiak. It's hard to say whether Kubiak really would have made a difference this year-after all, his new team, the Houston Texans, finished 28th overall in offense. (Surprisingly, that's only one spot behind Vince Young's team.)

But for all the things that went wrong with Denver's offense during this frustrating season-poor offensive line play, inconsistent passing, the tragic loss of Rod Smith-one significant though rarely-mentioned failure was play calling. Defenses-even of teams like San Francisco-always seemed one move ahead on the chessboard. Can the Broncos regain the element of surprise next year?

Second-most missed departure: Trevor Pryce. Twelve sacks for the Ravens.

Best new Bronco: Javon Walker. Walker finished the year with 69 catches for 1,084 yards (15.7 yards per catch) and eight touchdowns. He added 123 yards rushing and emerged as Denver's no-doubt go-to guy with the game on the line. He did all of this pretty much on his own. Walker had more than twice as many yards as the next-leading Denver receiver, Rod Smith. Did the Packers really give up on him for just a second-round pick?

Lamest move of the year: Starting Jay Cutler. Nothing against Cutler, who-recent success of Ben Roethlisburger aside-was pretty good for a rookie. Yet he led the Broncos to a worse record in his starts than Jake Plummer, while sharing the Snake's penchant for the unfathomable turnover. I guess the most shocking part of the move was how little Cutler sparked the team. The offense played with the same level of passion after he came off the bench as they did before. That's not all on him, of course, but it still surprised me.

Bell of the Year: Mountain. All right, Mike. Tatum's clearly a more talented player and the Broncos' second-best big play threat (on offense). But Tatum's late-season fumbles allowed Mike to see the field more and more in crunch time. The real lesson, though, is that neither will make for much of a feature back until the offensive line improves.

Player of the year: Champ Bailey. Ten interceptions from the corner who not only deserves defensive player of the year, but who, if the Broncos had made the playoffs, could have earned a spot in the "also receiving votes" section of league MVP balloting. He's got speed, hands, and guts, and he led the defense that carried the team.

(Update: changed post title.)

Taylor v. Merriman

On ESPN today, I saw two analysts debate recent comments made by the Miami Dolphins' Jason Taylor, who suggested that San Diego Chargers linebacker Shawne Merriman perhaps shouldn't go to the Pro Bowl or win the NFL's defensive player of the year award in a year when he served a four-game suspension for steroid use.

"You really shouldn't be able to fail a test like that and play in this league, to begin with," Taylor said Wednesday. "To make the Pro Bowl and all the other awards, I think you're walking a fine line of sending the wrong message."

It's an interesting argument. Wait, no it isn't. Should you really win an award like that if you so blatantly cheated? Probably not. But I don't think Merriman deserves it anyway.

The linked article (by the AP on ESPN.com) suggests that Merriman is Taylor's "chief rival" for the defensive player of the year award. If Taylor's candidacy makes you do a double-take, reconsider. This is not the baffling "The Dolphins are actually good" hype of seasons past. Taylor's play has finally matched his metrosexuality. He's got thirteen and a half sacks and forced nine fumbles. He's even returned a pair of interceptions for touchdowns.

Merriman, on the other hand, has sixteen sacks to his name, but is behind with four forced fumbles and one interception. Of course, he also missed four games to the aforementioned suspension, which is the main knock against him. That's a lot of time to miss. (Then again, it also means he's been more dominant when he's on the field. For example, he's had three games of at least three sacks.)

I think it's clear that Taylor has had the better season end-to-end. (And to me, missing four games is significant enough regardless of the reason.) But who says it comes down to those two anyway?

What about Champ Bailey? No, he's not really as invincible as people say, but his nine interceptions lead the league and his twenty passes defensed tie for the best in football. (And he's clutch-six of the picks happened no more than three yards from Denver's end zone.) And, even though he's just a corner, Bailey's 81 tackles-69 solo-far outpace the totals of either Taylor or Merriman, both of whom probably play alongside superior teammates. Bailey's having the best season of any cornerback I've ever seen, and he deserves this year's NFL defensive player of the year award.

Schadenfreude

Sometimes, I don't know how to feel. And this is one of those times.

As you either have heard or should have heard by now, you lazy know-nothing ingrate, a court of appeals recently ruled that...well, to be on the safe side, let's just quote the story:

With Barry Bonds still in their sights, federal investigators probing steroids in sports can now use the names and urine samples of about 100 Major League Baseball players who tested positive for performance enhancing drugs, following a ruling Wednesday from a federal appeals court.

The 2-1 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned three lower court decisions and could help authorities pinpoint the source of steroids in baseball.

I don't know about this. If you don't remember, the first year of steroid testing was supposed to, according to reports at the time, be completely confidential-intended more as a survey to see how prevalent steroid use was in baseball before real testing-and punishment-began.

Obviously, that's not how it played out. Someone was keeping track of who took what test, otherwise the feds wouldn't waste their time trying to get the records.

To be honest, I just don't know enough about the case. It could be the union lawyers who were responsible for the negotiations made some mistake and inadvertently allowed Major League Baseball to keep all the information. Then MLB, since it has surrendered all semblance of leverage to the players' union, then let the feds do what they do best-clean up baseball's messes so they don't have to. But what it looks like right now is that players could end up being punished for tests they took-testing they only agreed to because they thought it would be anonymous. And if that's really all it is, I don't like the precedent this sets.

On the other hand, while my general distaste for unions has cooled over the years, my absolute hatred for the MLBPA knows nearly no limits. It'd be great to see them screwed over for ignoring players' health and delaying beyond any reasonable expectation the implementation of steroid testing.

What do y'all think? More specifically, Cap'n, would you like to explain this all to us?

Iverson's impact

Have I bragged enough about the Nuggets' new guard? Allen Iverson has, not particularly surprisingly, been even better than advertised with his new team. He's been aggressively setting up his teammates and providing the team his infectious energy.

The real question for the Nuggets now is: how good can they be when everyone is back in the lineup?

Now, far be it from me to put limits on one of my favorite teams. If the Nuggets win the championship this season, no one will be happier than I'll be. But for all the talk of the team's newly-claimed elite status, there's one reason I don't think the Nuggets will win this year's title.

That reason? The San Antonio Spurs.

That's right, the Spurs. The team that's only in second place in the Southwest division behind the Dallas Mavericks-the very team that sent them home from the playoffs last year. The Spurs' winning percentage matches Utah's for merely the third-best in the conference (no longer true-see below). So why do I worry?

Because you should forget the records-the Spurs are the best team in the NBA so far. And they're the worst matchup for the Nuggets, but more on that in a second.

Why are the Spurs the best? Let's look at the competition:

The Eastern Conference. Good one! Yes, find me a contender from the Eastern Conference, where a team like the Celtics, with a 10-17 record, is only two games out of first place. (To be fair, in the Central division, everyone has a winning record.)

But the defending champion Heat are floundering without Shaq, the Pistons are good but past their championship prime, and the Wizards and Cavaliers, for all intents and purposes, are one-man teams.

Phoenix. The Suns are on a tear. Steve Nash is overrated, but what else is new? Certainly not the Suns' ability to give up 110 points to any team on any night.

Utah. I hate to break it to Jazz fans, but-who am I kidding, I love breaking it to Jazz fans-their team's success, while nice, is ultimately a house of cards. Yes, they're 21-8 and, for a while, had the best record in the league. But their average scoring differential (3.9 points) is more befitting of a team with a much worse record. Don't tell me that's coaching, either-that's luck. Expect Utah to slide back to the real world as the season goes on.

Dallas. The defending West champs are on a seven-game winning streak and currently sit just ahead of San Antonio. (Since I started writing this, the Spurs finished a thorough beating of the Jazz and are now considered 0 games back of the Mavs, though the Spurs' record is slightly worse by percentage.) But as good as the Mavericks have been, I still question their rebounding and crunch-time competence.

The Spurs, on the other hand, currently lead the league in scoring differential at 9.4 points per game. That's fantastic, and that's why, barring injuries, they'll finish with the NBA's best record. But the real reason they worry me is how they match up with the Nuggets come the playoffs.

Almost everything a Nuggets does well, the Spurs have an answer for. Marcus Camby's a great shot-blocker and terrific rebounder, but Tim Duncan can easily match him board-for-board while more than occupying his attention on the defensive end. Carmelo Anthony is an unstoppable machine this year except in fights, but he's yet to have a breakout series and gets frustrated, just like everyone else, when matched against Bruce Bowen. (Michael Finley's wearing down after years of ridiculous minutes, but he's not a bad spare against Anthony, either.) J.R. Smith has given the Nuggets a desperately-needed boost on the perimeter, but Manu Ginobili does it even better. Allen Iverson has the clearest edge on the Spurs' Tony Parker, but Parker's at least close to him in speed and is capable of excellent team defense.

Of course, Iverson-Carmelo could be the next Jordan-Pippen (without any of the defense), but that's a lot to count on, especially in one season.

I really think the Nuggets'll take a playoff series or two, and if things go well, they can be at least as good as the Suns and Mavs. But if I have to guess now, they're still not quite championship material.

Nuggets land Iverson

All right, I can't wait any longer. I've been trying not to jinx it, but here you are:

As ESPN reported, the Denver Nuggets have finally wrapped up trade talks with the Philadelphia 76ers and acquired superstar guard Allen Iverson.

Early verdict: it's a good move. No, it's a great move. Not even that. It's a tremendous move. In the short term, Iverson can pick up the scoring slack while Carmelo is out. In the long term-when Anthony comes back-the Nuggets will have two absolutely unstoppable scorers. It may cost both players a shot at the scoring title, but it'll cost opposing playoff teams so much more.

Iverson is only:

1. Hands down, no question, the toughest player since Michael Jordan. (Notice I didn't include any of that "pound-for-pound" garbage, either.)

2. One of the best scorers in NBA history. You knew that, but did you really? Michael Jordan has a higher per-game scoring average than the Answer. So does Wilt. But that's it. He's ahead of West, Shaq, Bird, and everybody else.

3. One of the top passers in the league, and a perfect fit for a high-altitude, open-court game. Everyone says he's selfish, and this year he's been selfish to the tune of more than seven assists per game.

This is so awesome, it almost doesn't matter who we gave up. Yet I've already seen people slam the Nuggets for giving up to much, given Philadelphia's bargaining position. Please. What, exactly, are we going to miss?

Two first-round draft picks? We're giving up ours, and one that originally belonged to Dallas. Both picks, then, will probably come at the end of the first round. The NBA draft is consistently so Jared Jeffries-thin, it's a wonder any team wants those picks or their guaranteed contracts. (That said, rookies drafted that late don't get paid much by NBA standards.)

Joe Smith? Well, the only thing he brings to the table is an expiring contract. Why would you want that? Cap space. Why do you want cap space? So you can get a superstar. I think we just cut out the middleman.

Andre Miller? A solid point guard, to be sure, who can pass, rebound, and miss more wide-open 15-footers than anyone in the league. Since he's the only thing of value we give up for, you know, Allen-freaking-Iverson, I think it's a good move. Wait, no-it's the most exciting trade of my life.*

And so we return to the Answer, who has certainly been dying to play with a team this talented ever since he dragged Dikembe's rotting carcass to the 2001 Finals. He'll love playing alongside Marcus Camby, who allows him to gamble defensively (something Iverson is going to do anyway) and grabs enough boards to keep the fast breaks coming. Guys like Reggie Evans and Eduardo Najera will provide more of the same. Now picture the offense. Iverson might have too many options running the break alongside Carmelo Anthony and J.R. Smith, and Anthony in particular gives him a terrific complement in the halfcourt offense. Oh, and if we're really lucky, we'll see Iverson play in short stretches with the Earl of Boykins.

There are only two potential downsides, which are hardly worth mentioning. First, Carmelo and AI could fight over shots and primacy. I think both players will recognize the opportunity they have and act accordingly-Iverson because he's 31, and Anthony because of the fallout from the fight. Second, AI could bristle at playing point guard. But in a lot of ways, that's been his role in Philadelphia for years. He'll be fine.

* = Yes, the Elway trade happened in my lifetime, but I was 1 at the time. And I didn't know we had a hockey team when the Avs traded for Patrick Roy.

Hi!

I still don't want to say anything until it's really official, but if you're bored, you might enjoy this article on ESPN.com.

Suspensions handed out

All right, I’m listening to David Stern’s press conference right now on NBA.com. (That website did something right!)

Both teams were fined five hundred thousand dollars. Carmelo Anthony was suspended for 15 games, Nate Robinson and J.R. Smith got 10 games, Mardy Collins got six, and Jared Jeffries is out for four games. Jerome James and Nene were suspended one game each for leaving the bench.

“I’m going to start holding the teams accountable for the actions of their players,” Stern said of the fine to the teams.

Personally, I don’t much care about the Knicks and Nuggets having to pay $500,000. The suspensions are almost uniformly too steep, which is too bad for the players, but not surprising. They had to know the NBA was going to come down hard on the next team that fights.

Will Isiah Thomas be fined or suspended?

"No, we have completed our fines and they're all set forth in this announcement," Stern said. He also suggested there wasn't enough evidence that Isiah deserved punishment. Man, I feel like I have enough evidence to suspend Thomas, but I guess Stern doesn't have access to the same kind of info I do.

Nuggets-Knicks fight

The Nuggets and Knicks got in a fight. (If you haven’t seen it yet, you can click on the links in the sidebar of this story, and you can find it a million other places.)

1. Thank you, Nate Robinson’s little-man complex, for escalating everything and, more importantly in my view, starting a fight that will get the league’s leading scorer suspended. I’m sure the Jazz are grateful.

2. Forget Darrent Williams. The Broncos should sign Carmelo to play cornerback, because he’s the only guy who can backpedal faster than Champ Bailey.

3. Supposedly George Karl was running up the score in honor of his friend, Larry Brown. Wait, why does Larry Brown hate the Knicks? If I was Larry Brown, I would sit front row at every Knicks game with a gigantic smile. Thanks for the eighteen million! Anyway, I’m sure the Knicks love the idea of teams using their games to show their true feelings about Brown. Sure, George Karl will run up the score from time to time, but a lot of other teams will show gratitude. I mean, the Pistons would probably shoot at their own basket just to let New York win, right?

4. Isiah Thomas calling you out for bad sportsmanship is like Allen Iverson saying you don't practice hard enough.

The NFC Contenders

Time for part 2. Right now the NFC has seven teams with winning records, and even though only six make the playoffs, I’ll rank all of them.

7. Atlanta Falcons (7-6)

Key stat: The Falcons lead the league with videogame numbers in rushing (197.7 yards per game) and yards-per-carry (5.6).

Positives: Mike Vick is the best quarterback among the 7-6 teams, and Atlanta has won a few playoff games in recent years.

Negatives: Possibly too many to list. They had a four-game losing streak. They’ve been outscored this year. The defensive statistics are pretty unimpressive, and even worse if you consider that teams with good ground games typically inflate their defensive statistics by controlling the ball. The passing attack is 32nd in the league. (Wait, why do I like Vick?)

Outlook: Could be the odd man out, but if they’re in, it’s one-and-done.

6. Philadelphia Eagles (7-6)

Key stat: Even with an unwanted quarterback change, the Eagles are third in offense.

Good: Jeff Garcia has no picks in 134 attempts, and his quarterback rating is slightly higher than Donovan McNabb’s. Brian Westbrook has already had, by far, his best year as a runner.

Bad: Garcia’s been a heck of an insurance policy, but he’s still a downgrade from McNabb. Defense is hopeless against the run. Team lost five of six at one point.

Outlook: Not really going anywhere, but a nice bounce-back season. Could they have done more with McNabb? Probably not.

5. New York Giants (7-6)

Key stat: The Giants’ six losses came against teams with a combined 51-27 record (Colts, Seahawks, Bears, Jaguars, Titans, and Cowboys).

Plusses: They beat most of the teams they should have, including Atlanta on the road by thirteen. Tiki Barber is still getting it done-2nd in the NFC in rushing in his final season.

Minuses: Tom Coughlin. Inability to find any rhythm thanks to a difficult schedule.

Outlook: This team is decidedly average-they win the games they should and lose the games they should. I guess they might upset the Cowboys, but the Seahawks and Saints appear out of their league.

4. Dallas Cowboys (8-5)

Key stat: Tony Romo’s 8.75 yards per attempt, a nearly two-yard improvement over Drew Bledsoe.

Good: Have won five of seven with Romo as starter. Offense good for 26.8 points per game, fourth in the league. Bill Parcells.

Bad: Obliterated by New Orleans last week. Most of their wins have come against bad teams. And there’s always a chance the young quarterback could come crashing down.

Outlook: The Cowboys can put up points, but so can other NFC teams. They should win the division and possibly a first-round game at home.

3. Seattle Seahawks (8-5)

Key stat: Thanks to injury, Shaun Alexander has just 591 rushing yards, more than a third of which came in one game.

In their favor: They won the NFC last year. Matt Hasselbeck and Alexander are back from injuries. Tremendous home-field advantage.

Bad signs: They’ve been outscored on the season. Hasselbeck and Alexander still show signs of rust. The Seahawks have lost to both the 49ers and Cardinals-and that’s just in the last four games.

Outlook: So why am I so high on Seattle? Mostly because the rest of the NFC is so mediocre. (Dallas is the only other team I could even consider for third in the conference.) And, considering the obstacles this year, their record is amazing.

2. New Orleans Saints (9-4)

Key stat: Drew Brees is already over 4,000 yards passing.

I like: the unstoppable deep passing attack, watching Reggie Bush highlights, and the attitude and production of Deuce McAllister.

I don’t like: the run defense that gives up more than five yards a carry. I don’t like their convincing home losses to two good-but-not-great AFC teams, the Bengals and the Ravens. And I’m already getting a little sick of the President.

Outlook: Clearly one of the top two teams in the NFC, and the best bet to upset Chicago. It probably won’t happen, but I’d love to see Brees beat the Chargers in the Super Bowl.

1. Chicago Bears (11-2)

Key stat: Chicago has scored 27.1 points per game, tops in the NFC. Yes, more than New Orleans.

Good: The defense, especially against the pass. Devin Hester. Lovie Smith not turning it over to Brian Griese.

The question mark is Rex Grossman, naturally. He’s up, he’s down-six games with a rating higher than 100, and three games where he was below the 39.6 “all incompletions” mark.

Outlook: With games against Tampa Bay, Detroit, and Green Bay, the Bears should cruise to home-field advantage. I don’t expect much from Grossman-inconsistent passers usually become consistently awful when the playoffs roll around. But Chicago’s defense and special-teams let the Bears ask less of their quarterback than any other squad. And while the Saints are pretty legit by NFC standards, I don’t think New Orleans has the right team to win in Chicago in January.

The AFC Contenders

If the season ended today, the Broncos would miss the playoffs, which is exactly what will happen when the season does end.

Despite what every player on a bubble team says-“if Pittsburgh did it last year, so could we”-a No. 6 seed is most assuredly not winning this year’s Super Bowl. Two reasons. First, Pittsburgh was remarkable precisely because they were rare-no other team ever accomplished what they did. And two, Pittsburgh would have had a much better record had Ben Roethlisberger stayed healthy. None of this year’s sixth-seed contenders match that profile. So even if a surprise team sneaks in (like, say, the Broncos), don’t expect much from them.

In any event, the six AFC teams that would make the playoffs today are, in fact, the six best teams in the conference. So how do I rank the AFC’s true contenders? Like this, from worst to best:

6. Cincinnati (8-5)

Key stat: They rank 32nd in passing defense.

I like: The passing attack, of course, that has the Bengals sixth in the league in scoring.

I don’t like: Anything else. They can’t wear the clock down with Rudi Johnson’s 3.8 yards per carry average. The defense is eighth in points allowed, but there are a lot of reasons that number is misleading. The defense is average-at best.

Outlook: Not good. First-round losers, probably, though that’ll depend on the matchup. (Check it out, no arrest jokes!)

5. Indianapolis (10-3)

Key stat: The Colts have been held to seventeen or fewer points in four of their last five games, a stretch that includes all three of their losses.

This looks good: And yet they’re still fifth in scoring and second in yards per game. This sounds weird, but they’re probably at the nadir of the season, and they’re still in good shape.

This does not: Does their free-fall after a 9-0 start signify a hangover from last year’s disappointment? It sure does. Besides, teams like Cleveland and Oakland give up fewer points per game, so the Colts’ offense has no margin for error.

Outlook: Maybe they should be higher than the fifth-best team in the conference. I just think the Colts have too much mental baggage to advance far in the playoffs.

4. Jacksonville (8-5)

Key stat: The Jaguars average more than one hundred sixty yards per game on the ground, more than anyone but the Falcons.

I like: The team’s resilience. Jacksonville lost to Houston 27-7 on Oct. 22. Despite quarterback turmoil, that’s the only game they lost by more than one score. Plus, they just obliterated the Colts.

I don’t like: this franchise, or its 25th-rated passing attack.

Outlook: The Jags would be set in the NFC, but are lost in the AFC shuffle. They might win their first game, though, especially if they face Indy again.

3. Baltimore Ravens (10-3)

Key stat: It’s Baltimore...what do you think their key stat is? They’re tops in the league in points allowed, giving up just over a baker’s dozen per game.

I like: The star-studded roster, and quarterback Steve McNair who, while no longer a superstar, has been incredibly accurate the last several weeks. Not only that, he’s got a track record of clutch performance.

I don’t like: the team’s personality, a combination of stout defense and short passing to control the clock. Yes, it worked for New England in years past. But I don’t think the Ravens can establish any kind of ground game in the playoffs, and being one-dimensional will hurt them.

Outlook: With Indy fading, they could be the No. 2 seed, which means an easy road to the AFC Championship. I don’t think they're much of a threat to win it, though.

2. New England Patriots (9-4)

Key stat: The Patriots were shut out by Miami last week. Wait, that’s bad! Let’s try: the Patriots have outscored opponents by 95 points, more than anyone but Chicago, San Diego, and Baltimore.

Good vibes: Tom Brady and Bill Belichick. Third in points allowed.

Bad news: Brady’s been a bit inconsistent this year as he’s struggled to adjust to an overhauled receiving corps. The offense can be good, but it doesn’t scare anyone.

Outlook: With some teams, you throw the stats out the window. Actually, no, I don’t agree with that. But the Patriots are better than their record shows, and I still trust Tom Brady more in a close game than anyone this side of Vince Young. (That’s a joke; Brady is still king.) I might be giving them too much credit for experience, I guess, but it hardly matters. The Patriots, like everyone in the AFC, clearly look up to the...

1. San Diego Chargers (11-2)

Key stat: LaDainian Tomlinson has had seven straight 100-yard games, including three over 170. He may have broken some sort of record last week.

I like: LT for MVP. Those consecutive road comebacks over the Broncos and Bengals. The average score of Chargers 32.7, Opponents 19.8. The fact that both losses came by only three points. Philip Rivers.

I don’t like: um...I like almost everything. The defense could be a little better against the run. It’s possible that someone will keep a playoff game close enough to keep running the ball, but Jacksonville’s the only other AFC team with a frightening ground attack. Oh, and Marty Schottenheimer.

Outlook: Super Bowl.

Coming soon: The NFC.

The NBA basketball

As I mentioned in the comments of the last post, I don’t like how sports and capitalism mix sometimes.

You can’t look for sporting news anywhere right now without stumbling across a mention of the NBA switching back to the leather basketball. Shoot, it was even on the ESPN ticker all last night during Monday Night Football.

Actually, I almost have to take that back. There is one place where it’s practically a non-issue: NBA.com. Take a look-as of right now, there’s only a tiny link to “Leather Ball Reaction Page,” which I thought would be a list of glowing quotes from ecstatic players. Nope, it’s the press release of the announcement. There are no reactions whatsoever on the page, and the title is really misleading. (I almost didn't click on it since ESPN.com had a similar thing yesterday, but I'm glad I did.)

Yes, NBA.com is not the New York Times, but that’s lame. Obviously, the NBA’s ashamed of the switch back for a couple of reasons-for one, the players’ complaints are embarrassing to corporate partner Spalding and two, the whole switch makes commissioner David Stern look like a total jerk.

I like to hear whining even less than most people, and at first, I thought the players’ association’s lawsuit, in particular, was an overreaction. But the more I thought about it, the more I sympathized. The ball is pretty central to what basketball players do at work. Besides, why on Earth would you change the ball without talking to anyone? What’s the point, other than being a control freak?

That’s the problem for the NBA and for Stern-it puts him in a bad light and, with the revisionist history that is modern sports coverage, that colors all his previous actions. Come to think of it, that dress code thing was pretty lame last year too, wasn’t it? Yes, the players make millions and sure, they can afford some suits. But why not work out the details with the players before going public? I don’t get it.

Anyway, back to Econ 101. Like Jake Plummer jerseys, the “new” NBA ball (the one introduced this season) should soon be available at a discount price. So you go to NBA.com and click on the store link. Go to sporting goods. And you’ll see this.

(Go ahead, click it.)

That’s right, a huge picture of the “new” basketball! They’re still selling it and worse, they’re still promoting it. I can understand wanting to unload stock of the new ball, but that's just shady, and the NBA needs to change it. (I couldn't find a link to buy the real leather basketball, though it's available elsewhere.) Maybe that doesn’t bug you as much as it does me, but think of a Santa Claus out there looking to get a gift for a basketball-loving son or daughter. Congratulations, kid, you got the ball that makes Jason Kidd’s hands bleed.

The NBA screwed up, but now they’re doing the right thing. I just wish they weren’t being such twerps about it.

BCS

It's a tired topic at this point, so I'll keep it short. I'm going to argue about the teams, but it's really the system, of course, that's flawed. The real answer for determining a champion is a tournament-you know, like they have for every single other sport. But here's why I don't like the options under the current system.

The problem with Florida is that their promotion to the BCS title game seems a little, how shall I say, artifical. Yes, they played a tough schedule and outside of Michigan, they're the only team left anyone can take seriously as No. 2. (Of course, Boise State is undefeated.) But it's a lovely coincidence that they just happened to cement that No. 2 status this weekend. I don't really see how that win over Arkansas proves they're better than the Wolverines.

The problem with Michigan is that I can't imagine anything more unfair to the undefeated Ohio State Buckeyes. Think about it. If Ohio State had lost to Michigan at home, well, they might have had an argument for being the real second-best team in the nation, but no one would have listened. I think they'd have blown their BCS title game shot right there.

So, in other words, Ohio State has already played Michigan with the national championship on the line...and they won. It's kind of messed up to say they have to play the exact same team for the exact same stakes just so we know they really deserve it.

On the other hand, Michigan was undefeated and had to face their rival team, which was also undefeated, on the road. And they barely lost. So there's a decent chance that they're actually the nation's second-best team. Shoot, they might even be just as good as Ohio State, if you think about it. Maybe they do deserve another bite at the apple.

The problem with Ohio State is that their coach is a total wuss. Who did he think the No. 2 team was?

Ohio State coach Jim Tressel has a vote in the coaches' poll but abstained this week.

"After consultation with my director of athletics, Gene Smith, and based upon our unique position in the BCS standings, I believe it is only fair that we not participate the final poll," he said in a statement.

Wait, what? How is that fair? It's dumb that coaches vote on the best teams in their own sport, but they do, so why shouldn't he vote? Tressel is really saying one of three things:

1. He can not be trusted with such a weighty responsibility-he knows which of the two teams is better, and he also knows he will vote for the other team to give himself an easier road, so abstention is the only honorable path;

2. He can make the right choice, but some people may not like it; or, in other words, he has the thinnest skin in America; or

3. He is scared of providing the legendary "bulletin-board material."

Whichever it is, I hope he loses.

NFL thoughts

1. More on the Broncos in a sec, but if you didn't see, Al Wilson left the game on a stretcher with what the Broncos called a strained neck in the fourth quarter. There's probably more news on this somewhere else by the time you read this. Hope he's okay.

2. I caught a bit of the Giants-Cowboys game-I think this was only the second time I've seen the Giants this year, and I'm already completely sick of them. Anyway, I don't know if you can really see his visor color in this picture, but if Giants linebacker Antonio Pierce ever needs to look up Wheeljack's courage level, he can do it with his helmet on.

3. Speaking of Cowboys-Giants, you know that media savvy star who always whines about not getting the ball enough? What's his name? Tiki Barber? Yeah. He had another killer fumble this afternoon. Maybe Giants fans won't be so sad to see him go.

4. I've got no insight on Rob Bironas' 60-yarder to beat the Colts, but he's my hero.

5. All right, Broncos-Seahawks. Shaun Alexander carried it 26 times for 90 yards in a win at altitude, so it's not like he had a bad game. And yes, he's been hurt this year. But I can't think of a big-name player who's more underwhelming to watch. He must be really good the times I don't see him.

6. Champ Bailey, on the other hand, never disappoints, picking off Hasselbeck on an end-zone bomb in the third quarter.

7. It was 13-7 Denver at the start of the fourth quarter. Once Wilson got hurt, Seattle scored ten quick points to make it 17-13. Now we see what Jay can do. His first-down pass is tipped at the line and intercepted. NBC flashes to Jake Plummer on the sidelines and says that since 1997, his 30 fourth-quarter game-winning or game-tying drives lead the NFL. A few things:

a. First, I realize that's a bogus stat. How many guys have even been regular starters since then? Tom Brady, for example, has only played about half that span. There's Favre, Bledsoe, McNair, and that's about it, though Peyton Manning's pretty close.

b. And yes, most of Plummer's comebacks came with Arizona.

c. But still...I really didn't want to see that right then.

d. Just for the record, since his career may be over, 30 is a ton of comebacks. Almost two season's worth. John Elway, the all-time leader, had 47.(According to DenverBroncos.com, 23 of Plummer's drives won the game, rather than merely tying it.)

8. Anyway, Seattle gets a field goal, it's 20-13. Cutler hits Brandon Marshall for a short pass along the sideline, and Marshall breaks tackles all the way to the end zone. I can only remember three of his plays this year, but I'm a Brandon Marshall fan. (Seattle, of course, got the ball back and won it with a field goal. Bastards.)

9. In the end, Game 1 under Jay Cutler looked a lot like games 1-11 under Jake Plummer. The pocket still collapsed in the blink of an eye, passes were inaccurate, the ground game was inconsistent, and an unconscionable desperation heave led to a Seattle touchdown. So far, no good.

Plummer to Cutler

I’m not even going to bother with a link-everyone who’s reading this already knows Jay Cutler will start for the Broncos Sunday against Seattle. What you don’t know is whether it’s a good move, and that’s where I come in. Here are some arguments for and against the change that I’ve either heard or made up:

Pro No. 1: A young quarterback can revitalize an offense. Look at the Dallas Cowboys and Tony Romo this year. (Yes, I know I already used that quarterback change as an example of what NOT to do. Shut up.) Once Bledsoe came out, the team was reborn-the offense especially.

Yes, Bledsoe’s ceiling was more established than Plummer’s. But we know what Jake can and can’t do. While Cutler’s not any more mobile than Plummer, he’s got a better arm.

Or so I’m told-I didn’t really watch the preseason. But two things jump out at anyone watching the Broncos try to move the ball this year:

1. Wow, Javon Walker is good; and,

2. Why don’t they throw to him on every play?

Plummer can throw deep-it was a huge mark in his favor when he replaced Braindead Brian-but the coaching staff clearly doesn’t trust him to air it out every play. If Cutler can gain that trust...look out. I know Walker's going to hold up his end.

Con No. 1: Why wait until now? Naturally, the team didn’t bench Jake the Snake because they got off to a great start at 7-2. Now they’ve lost two in a row, and it makes some sense to reevaluate things, though Plummer’s played at the same low level the whole season. Why do it now? Is this a panic move destined to fail, or have the Broncos considered this all a long? The Broncos are still right in the postseason hunt-they'd be in the playoffs, in fact, if the season ended today-and that makes the timing really odd.

If the Broncos really thought Cutler was a cut above (I’m sorry), he would have been starting the whole time. Don’t believe me? In 1999 Mike Shanahan happily benched veteran Bubby Brister for unproven second-year man Brian Griese right before the season began. That didn’t really work out, but the coach wasn’t afraid to try. Perhaps the whole Griese experience has made the Broncos’ head coach gun-shy. I doubt it, though, because he still plays who he wants to play, regardless of what fans and media believe. That suggests that this move isn’t borne of desperation.

Pro No. 2: There’s still time to turn it around. So the timing of the switch-eleven games into the season-is peculiar. On the flip side of that coin, the Broncos still have five games left to play. While you’d expect Cutler, a rookie, to have at least one bad game in that stretch, playing him now gives him enough time to relax a little by the time the playoffs roll around (assuming we're in).

Con No. 2: Turn what around? Yes, Jake Plummer’s had a bad year-and we’re getting to that-but the Broncos’ offensive struggles are hardly limited to the quarterback. The running game is solid, though, once again, neither runner has really claimed the job as his own. The passing game has exactly one effective target-yes, that’s partly Plummer’s fault, but the aerial attack is clearly an afterthought personnel-wise.

Worst of all is the play of the offensive line. The run game is very good statistically, though it feels inconsistent. And the pass protection has been uneven all year long. It’s not that our line has been truly awful, but the offensive line is absolutely crucial to the success of any offense.

Pro No. 3: Jake Plummer’s having a bad year. Boy howdy. The Snake’s 28th in passer rating this year, has thrown more picks than Andrew Walter, and has fewer touchdown passes than Jon Kitna. Can I spin that? Nope, though the playcalling has gotten away from Plummer’s strengths. When was the last time we ran the famous bootleg? Instead, the coaches have asked him to be a risk-free, drop-back passer-which, contrary to popular opinion, he wasn’t last year-and Plummer has, predictably, failed in that role.

Con No. 3: But Plummer’s been pretty good before. Until the last two weeks, the Broncos had an outstanding record despite never scoring. Jake had bad numbers...except for the wins, though, and isn’t that the only thing that matters?

But Jake was bad eleven weeks in a row this year, right? Believe it or not, that’s not a very long time. Brian Griese was good ten weeks in a row once-so good, in fact, that the Broncos gave him a $12.6 million signing bonus after the season. How’d that turn out?

Anyway, enough beating around the bush. What do I think of the move? Yes, I’ve defended Plummer the whole year and it’s unfair to make him the fall guy. But since when has the NFL been about fairness? The Broncos aren’t going anywhere if the offense doesn’t improve, and it’s clear they needed to shake things up. I can’t wait to see what happens Sunday.

Pro football on Sunday night

To introduce today's topic, please welcome my Chargers season preview, courtesy of the world-renowned Hole Punch Archives:

Yes, [the Chargers have] exceeded expectations the last few seasons, but Brees provided a lot of that grit. I think San Diego will compete with Oakland for the division cellar.

Yikes. Instead the Chargers are 7-2 heading into Sunday night's game in Denver (6:15 on NBC). Here are some Fun Facts:

San Diego is 4th in the league in offense. (Denver? 19th)
San Diego is 1st in scoring, Denver is 23rd.
San Diego is 8th in defense. Denver ranks 13th.
San Diego is 11th in scoring defense. Ha, losers. Denver is still 1st.
Philip Rivers is third in the league in passer rating. Jake Plummer is not. (He's 28th.)
LaDainian Tomlinson already has 932 yards on the ground, with seven games to play. (Oh, and since I probably won't talk about the 49ers much, mad props to my man who's currently fifth in rushing.)

You get the point. Fine, one more: Rivers has thrown three picks the entire year. Plummer's had two games with three picks.

Anyway, what else needs to be said? I'm much more nervous about this game than I was a few weeks ago. San Diego has the kind of passing attack that can make a mockery of our defense. It's true, though, that the Chargers have done their best work this year against pretty bad defenses.

The Denver offense was showing signs of life, until they played Oakland last week. And then it all fell apart. I still think the Broncos will win Sunday, but I'm not sure. What do you think?

Nuggets lose K-Mart

Hey, kids! I don’t know if you’ve been paying attention to the Nuggets-I haven’t-but they just lost Kenyon Martin for the year following knee surgery.

When I saw this, it made sense-he never really got better from last year, did he? Except, oh wait...it’s his other knee. And he doesn’t even know what caused it. That’s an encouraging sign. It’s always good to lose a year and not really know why. He’ll be totally healthy next year though, right?

Good thing the Nuggets are only on the hook for sixty million dollars or so. While we’re on the topic of chronic knee injuries...the sixty million Martin is guaranteed is more than the $56 million in Terrell Davis’ biggest contract, most of which he never would have seen if he had remained healthy anyway. And Davis was a league MVP-probably the best football player in the world-while Martin is, usually, just one of the best forwards on his team. That’s why I don’t think NFL players who hold out are all that crazy or selfish, even though they’d make more than you and I do, new contract or not.

Since recent history proves that knee injuries to generously-compensated Nuggets forwards are inevitable (LaPhonso, Antonio, please not Carmelo), at least the team was smart enough not to build around this latest victim.

Martin is a starter and something of a key contributor, though. As Carmelo said in the linked article, “I don't care what nobody says, he's a big part of our team.” At least the Nuggets have a lot of power forwards in reserve. Are they any good? You tell me.

Reggie Evans: Last year’s trade deadline pickup has proven himself as a fantastic rebounder and...um...as a guy who’s good at grabbing the ball after someone misses a shot. He’s a decent defender, though he’s not much of a shot-blocker or anything, and he’s definitely a step behind a healthy Martin. Offensively...let’s not even go there, except that, in my incredibly optimistic opinion, playing him more should mean more defensive rebounds for the team, and therefore more fast-break opportunities for the skill players.

Nene: No stranger to $60 million himself, Nene could, theoretically, play up to his potential and replace Martin almost single-handedly. He’s the most likely candidate, talent-wise. Except...he’s coming off a knee injury suffered last year and has, in fact, missed the last three games with a bruised knee.

Eduardo Najera: He hustles! Isn’t that cool? I think if he played big minutes, his shortcomings would probably be exposed, though perhaps that’s unfair, considering how he's played when given minutes in the past. What I can’t tell is whether the Nuggets consider him a real option. On one hand, he’s started five of our seven games (the ones Martin hasn’t), but on the other, he’s only getting about twenty minutes a game.

Joe Smith: This guy was the No. 1 overall draft pick just eleven short years ago. He’s shown signs of his old explosiveness, managing to...appear in the last three games. That actually represents progress. I imagine his minutes will go up, but he’s pretty low on the totem pole.

So yeah, the Nuggets are totally hosed.

College football thoughts

My thoughts on the college football season...

1. Colorado is not good. I meant to live-blog a game or something, but really, what other conclusion could I have come to? There’s plenty of blame to go around-the new coach hasn’t made a lick of difference, Bernard Jackson throws more passes to the ground than to his receivers (49.7% completion rate this year), and the defense has kept things just close enough to get us beat.

By the way, how much of a grace period does a new coach get? Do we give him four or five years to get all of his kind of players on the team? Or can we expect him to, you know, do his job the first few years, too? I don’t think Dan Hawkins should be fired or anything, but I guess I expected a lot more this year.

2. BYU is back...I guess. Somehow BYU has slipped back in to its rightful place at the bottom of the Top 25 polls. I’m not the biggest fan of Alma’s mater, though I do hate Utah at least as much as I despise Nebraska.

When I was a kid, the Captain and I used to look at the AP polls on Tuesday to see where BYU should be ranked. This usually involved counting out spots in the “Also receiving votes” section and determining that the Cougars were 28th or so in the nation. Good times. They brought back the old jerseys, and now they’ve brought back the old tradition of beating up on crappy teams all year long. See? New coaches don’t have to struggle.

3. Should Louisv-I mean Rutgers-play in the title game? Last Friday on PTI, Lee Corso announced that no matter what happens this year, Rutgers wouldn’t deserve a national title game berth over a team from a real conference. Big surprise. Corso, like Billy Packer on the basketball side, is one of those college analysts who can’t stop hyping the big schools.

I’m not sure that makes him wrong, though. Rutgers’ schedule is pretty easy, and they’ve had some close calls. They’ve only played one ranked team all year (Louisville last week). Big schools play way tougher schedules! Um, right?

Maybe. Michigan, for example, has only played one ranked team so far. They still have to play Ohio State, the current No. 1 in both polls. Does that really count, though? Some people already think a Michigan-Ohio State rematch should be the national title game, regardless of who wins. Rutgers isn’t allowed to lose any games.

Most top teams have played two or three ranked squads already. Thus Rutgers’ schedule has been easier than most, but no one in college football plays a good team every week.

And Rutgers is undefeated, something only Ohio and Boise States can say. Yeah, the schedule’s easy, but it’s the best they could possibly do. Look at it this way: if you put Peyton Manning, LaDainian Tomlinson, and Brian Urlacher in Rutgers uniforms this year, they’d obviously be the best team in college football, but they’d still only be 9-0. (They’d be 9-0 since Rutgers hasn’t played Florida…right, Peyton?) My point is that we don’t know how good Rutgers can be, because they’ve passed every test so far.

My answer’s kind of a cop-out-I want to see what happens in the last few games before I say if Rutgers deserves a spot. I do think it’s too early to say they don’t deserve a spot, though.

Payback

It's a nice little coincidence. Sunday the Broncos face the Steelers, who knocked them out of last year's playoffs. Tomorrow night the Nuggets play the L.A. Clippers, who knocked them out of last year's playoffs. Friday the Avalanche host the Anaheim Mighty Ducks, who knocked them out of last year's playoffs. (All right, the part about the Avs was a complete fabrication, but you believed me, didn't you?)

Forget the Steelers game. The last thing I want to talk about right now is Denver's football team. (Seriously, what was that Sunday? I finally start to fall for the defense, and voila! Peyton Manning, for the first time ever, gets the better of it. You win some, you lose to the Colts.)

I'm not so excited about the Clippers game either, per se, but I am glad the NBA is back, especially after this week. So what has changed from when we last left the squad? (Not that much.)

New guys: The Smiths, Joe and J.R., might be Denver's most effective sibling duo since Ellis fraternals LaPhonso and Dale were alternating three-point bombs and ACL blowouts. Joe Smith, yes, is the Joe Smith. Not the founder of the Mor-you idiot, I'm talking about the former No. 1 overall pick of the Golden State Warriors.

If Joe Smith has indeed made a name for himself over the years, it's probably for the money he took under the table from the Timberwolves. That ended up costing them a bunch of first-round picks and helped the franchise squander Kevin Garnett's prime. However, he hasn't really made a name for himself, which is why I felt the need to tell you that story.

J.R. Smith is an "exciting young player" from New Orleans. (The team, not the city.) I don't know much about him, probably because I always confuse him with Josh Smith of the Hawks. (They both made names for themselves at the same slam dunk contest, give me a break.) In all seriousness J.R. should be the starter at shooting guard, and hopefully he can at least slow down the revolving door of mediocrity at the position.

The not-so-new guy: Desite some serious strife at the end of last season, power forward Kenyon Martin remains with the team.

Is he the key to the season? Not the way it's planned out...but sort of. The Nuggets should be deeper in the frontcourt with Marcus Camby, with Nene back, and with Reggie Evans here the whole season. But each of those has either health or ability questions, and it's likely the Nuggets will end up needing a solid contribution from Martin to stack up in the West this year.

The other question is his attitude. If he wants to, Martin can be quite a distraction, as he proved in last year's playoffs. I think that probably won't be an issue-after all, he's still starting when he's healthy, and he's still cashing huge checks-but he's worth keeping an eye on.

Carmelo: The Broncos' defense of basketball players, Carmelo Anthony, once again, will be asked to prove his ability in the pressure of the postseason. He is amazingly clutch in regular season games but falters a bit when everyone else dials it up. Will that continue? I'd say no, but I said no last year, and he didn't really get it done against the Clippers.

We won't know until April. But I, once again, think Carmelo will have a great year, and the Nuggets should be back in position to prove themselves in the playoffs.

Four without fear

So it’s not quite Jacksonville-Kansas City-Pittsburgh-Green Bay, but the Broncos are nonetheless coming up on their most exciting four-game stretch in years, and I can’t wait.

This Sunday: Indianapolis at Denver. The Broncos host the Colts in Denver’s first real test of the season. (Unless you count the Rams.)

The Colts’ perfect 6-0 mark does include road wins against both New York squads, but the horseshoe-shorn squad has already played half its home games. The Colts had an easy early schedule? Could the NFL front office be looking to do them some kind of favor?

Indianapolis brings the third-ranked offense (and the fourth in scoring) into the home of the league’s stingiest defenders. But forget the numbers-this matchup is interesting because of certain recent postseason events I’d prefer not to mention. In like fashion, Denver has owned the regular season matchups, but this is the first recent in-season meeting to hold significance for both teams.

Nov. 5: At Pittsburgh. After destroying the Colts, the Broncos move on to Pittsburgh, where they’ll dishonor Heinz Field in much the same way their foes despoiled the sacred grass of Invesco last January.

The Steelers are weird. Their stopgap quarterback, Charlie Batch, has almost twice the quarterback rating of superstar Ben Roethlisberger (136.8 to 74.5). They’re ninth in offensive yardage and twelfth in defensive, and they’ve outscored opponents by nineteen-but the defending champions are just 2-4.

Pittsburgh’s dangerous, but they’ve struggled against good defenses this year-and the Broncos certainly qualify on that count.

Nov. 12: At Oakland. Unfortunately, Oakland failed in their glorious quest for winlessness. Now that they’ve sampled the sweet nectar of victory, are the Raiders a formidable opponent for the Horsemen? No chance! Expect Art Shell, Andrew Walter, and Randy “Never Die Easy” Moss to remain gainfully employed during this contest, and expect Oakland’s season of futility to nadir with a devastating defeat at the hands of their most hated rival.

Oh, I suppose it has all the makings of a “trap” game, but I don’t gamble and don’t intend to get you to start, so why make something out of nothing? On a side note, I did make note of the NFL’s thoughtful nature, scheduling this game two weeks after Halloween so as to allow Bay Area costume shops to restock Darth Vader outfits in anticipation of kickoff.

Nov. 19: San Diego at Denver. The Chargers are perhaps the surprise of the NFL season. (Or, more accurately, Philip Rivers is.) I hope the punishing Denver defense can accelerate Fill-up’s transition into his post-football career as a service station attendant, because I can never remember if it’s Philip or Phillip.

However, with a sparkling 96.3 rating twenty-three days in advance of the AFC West’s showcase showdown, this appears unlikely. It appears LaDainian’s career may yet not be in vain, for San Diego has finally found the passer they’ve sought since running Drew Brees out of town so many seasons past.

With a powerful offense ranked fourth in the NFL, surely San Diego must thirst for improvement on the ball’s opposite side, yes? Nay, for the Chargers are No. 1 in the NFL’s yards-allowed standings, though they give up almost twice as many points as the Broncos.

San Diego is very good-perhaps the most complete team we’ll face this year.

You know what else is good? 9-1.

NFL Goes Global (again)

You’ve probably already heard that the NFL will hold a regular season game in a foreign country next year. (That’s not a first, but the league wants to make it a permanent part of the schedule.) This feels like a big story-for all I know, it led off SportsCenter, which I almost never watch.

(For some reason everyone assumes I love ESPN. I guess that makes sense-I do run a sports blog-but still. I guess I just don’t like NASCAR highlights as much as you’d think I do. Or how they always pull that, “Coming up next…” crap when they have an interesting story that won’t air for another forty minutes. A few months back a friend of mine tried to invite herself over to watch some non-World Cup soccer game, because of course I get the Ocho and would have it on. No dice. I’m curious-do any of you guys watch SportsCenter regularly?)

Anyway, I don’t much care for the idea, though it wouldn’t have much impact on any one team.

The plan would be set up so that teams would rotate over a 16-year period, with each team playing outside the country twice over that span, once as a visitor, the other as a home team. That means a team would lose one game team during that span.

"Obviously the league's going to work out the economics and if we lose a home game, we'll get compensated," said Pat Bowlen, owner of the Denver Broncos. "We're comfortable with it. Obviously we'd like to play in Mexico or Canada and not have to travel to Europe and that's probably the way it would be set up because of our location. But as far as the league's concerned, I think it's a great idea."

Right now I’m supposed to say insightful like, “Oh, I guess this is all about the money”-but instead I’ll settle for having no clue what this “one game team” is that everyone's losing.

Sure, if the Broncos play in Germany in 2012 and then in Mexico in 2020, I’ll live. Not a huge disruption, especially if the league time-zones it properly for TV here, which they certainly will. I thought other countries didn't like football, but obviously the league thinks they’ll come around. I don’t really care whether other countries start liking football, but whatever. (Is the Champions League coming to Miami anytime soon?)

What happens when there’s a Broncos-Raiders game in the United Kingdom? You’re right-that will probably never happen. I'd guess that teams won’t play division or even conference rivals overseas. Some year, though, a couple of teams will exceed preseason expectations, and the biggest game of the year will be in Canada. (I can’t think of any good examples this year because no one’s really gone from awful to good, but last year you could have had, say, an incredible Bears-Bengals game outside the U.S.) Is that going to be a big deal to you?

Monday Night Thoughts

Some thoughts from Monday Night Football...

1. I wish T.O. hadn’t been playing last night-sometimes, you just need a break from the guy. That said, he wasn’t the most loathsome player on the field Monday night-I’d take him over Jeremy Shockey, certainly, and probably Eli Manning. And yet, Eli and Shockey were playing the Cowboys. Can you root for both teams to lose?

2. Tiki Barber’s played for New York his whole career, but he’s still underrated. You should watch him while you still can. I’m serious. I can’t quite say why, but I got a feeling watching the game last night that this could be Barber’s last season in the NFL. I haven’t spoken to any Giants, but it just seems right. Call it a hunch.

3. Eli Manning’s first-quarter bomb to Plexiglass Burress was both a wonderful throw and a fantastic catch. When the younger Manning is making smart decisions with the ball, it can be a thing of beauty. When he’s rifling it at a triple-covered Amani Toomer, as he did later in the quarter, then not so much. Manning also got so claustrophobic under one first-half rush that he put his head down and ran over to a defensive linemen, who promptly sacked him. I’m not even kidding-on the replay, he puts his head down like he’s about to get hit, but realizes he sort of quit on the play early, so he steps forward into the guy’s arms. You don’t believe me, do you? It happened!

4. I sort of feel for Drew Bledsoe, who’s obviously good enough to start in the NFL but is just as clearly not a great passer. I was happy for him when he ran in that QB sneak in the second quarter. That said...I could not have been less surprised than I was when he threw the pick on second-and-goal near the end of the half. I’d hate to be average at a job like NFL quarterback. Yeah, the money’s great, but the American public has (fairly or not) equated Drew Bledsoe with sucking pretty much for the last decade or so.

5. All the fans in Dallas rooting for Tony Romo, well, they got what you wanted. Romo was pretty solid, by the numbers anyway-more than two hundred yards in a half and two scores. Except he threw three picks, including one that went ninety-six yards for a score. (So, in other words, he ended up making the same throw that got Bledsoe benched.) Not to beat this into the ground, but I bring this up amidst reports that the Broncos are considering a change at QB. (Mike Shanahan said Jake Plummer will start this week.)

If the team does bench Plummer, what happens if Cutler isn’t any better? Plummer has experience, and I’d feel better watching a struggling Plummer than a struggling Cutler, if that makes any sense. But our offense has been inconsistent all year long. I don’t feel like they’ve been truly terrible, though, and I keep expecting us to break it open. Maybe I’m blind. But once Cutler takes the field, all his potential disappears, and it comes down to what he can do right now. If we do make a change, I just hope we're sure.

And continuing highlights from our series, Proud Moments in Cleveland Browns History. Today’s episode: Sunday, October 22, 2006:

1. The Browns, just barely in Broncos territory, have a fourth-and-short in the first quarter and elect to go for it. Charlie Frye takes the snap, rolls to the left, and gets sacked. Now, the play call was stupid, and he didn’t have a ton of time, but he could have gotten rid of the ball. What are you going to do, throw a pick? Granted, you don’t want to give up a long return, but considering all the Broncos were in his face, they couldn’t have blocked for the interceptor or anything. Just chuck it, man.

2. On first-and-goal early in the third, Plummer lofts a pass to rookie receiver Brandon Marshall in the end zone. The pass falls incomplete. On the way back to the huddle, Cleveland defensive back Ralph Brown glares at Marshall and appears to be jawing at him, as well. Fun fact about Brown: he attended the University of Nebraska. How do I know? On the next play, Brown gave up a touchdown pass to Brandon Marshall.

Rant

How many bloggers have ever written the words, “I love Microsoft”? I can only think of one. But sometimes love fades.

Why? Because Microsoft came out with a new version of Internet Explorer last week, and it doesn’t show Hole Punch Sports properly. It’s not a big thing-the top search bar just overlaps the “Hole Punch Sports” box-but considering I’ve been nothing but a shill for that company, it’s a little weird. (Plus this website doesn’t even have pictures-I don’t know how you screw that up, but I guess they found the one possible way.)

There may be an easy fix, but I didn’t find it in several seconds of Googling, so I gave up, especially considering there’s a decent chance Blogger will fix it for me.

In the meantime, like my link-mate, I will point you in the direction of some alternatives. (Though I read and recommend the site, I’m not the Mike who commented on that particular post.) I tested this site with Firefox, Opera, Safari, Camino, Mozilla, and Konqueror, and each worked. I would have tried more, but those were really the only ones I could think of. In fact, I’m quite confident that Internet Explorer is the only browser on the entire planet that will have problems with this website. (Strictly speaking, that’s not true-AOL Explorer has the same problem, but it’s just IE with AOL’s name on it.)

You should probably update your computer anyway-I did-but don’t be surprised when the best site on the whole Internet ain’t so pretty anymore.

Baseball fans...?

Game 7 of the NLCS, a do-or-don’t-go-to-the-World-Series game for both the Mets and Cardinals, will start any minute now. (It probably did start by the time this is up, but never underestimate a Fox pre-game show.)

Me? I'm watching The Office tonight. I’m not alone. That show rocks. No, that’s not right. I mean I’m not alone in ignoring baseball. (I don't hate the game, but this matchup does nothing for me.)

From an AP article:

An AP-AOL Sports poll released Thursday shows that only one-third of Americans call themselves fans of professional baseball -- about the level of support for the last decade, but lower than 1990.

Remember how boring baseball was in 1990? Me neither. Glad they pointed it out anyway.

Some players don’t understand it.

Brandon Inge of the World Series-bound Detroit Tigers was surprised to hear that only 32 percent of Americans consider themselves fans.

"That sounds a little low to me," the third baseman said. "It's America's pastime."

Mister Inge, Oxford on line two. That’s it, I’m rooting for the N.L. What kind of argument is that?

To be fair, his confusion is completely understandable. He obviously sees a lot of baseball fans. And those people are completely nuts.

That’s right, you can finally-what, you didn’t click? As “they” say:

[F]ans of the New York Yankees, Boston Red Sox, Detroit Tigers, Philadelphia Phillies, Chicago Cubs and Los Angeles Dodgers will be able to have their ashes put in an urn or be lowered six feet under in a casket emblazoned with their team colors and insignia.

That’s a little...that’s just ridiculous. As if fans of any of those six teams aren’t obnoxious enough in life, now they can torture the rest of us in death. (If you think that's unfair to Tigers fans, give 'em a week.) It gets better:

Each urn will feature recognition of the deceased's passionate support, stamped with a message that says "Major League Baseball officially recognizes [person's name] as a lifelong fan of [team]."

Oh, good, as long as it’s official. Now when your friends come over, and dad’s in the Dodgers cup over the fireplace, they can’t just go ahead and call him a bandwagon kind of guy. I just realized, when I die, I’m not going to have that seal of approval. What have I done with my life?

In case any of you have no idea how the free market works, this isn’t something the company just dreamed up on a whim.

Farmington Hills, Mich.-based Eternal Image, which also makes a line of Vatican-themed products, "wanted to break into a sports venue of some kind," said Clint Mytych, the company's CEO. "It is the all-American sport."

He said he has gotten at least 1,000 inquiries since June.

A thousand grieving people wanted this badly enough to look up a company in Michigan and request it? Eternal Image could be the Microsoft of urn design for all I know, but still.

Whatever you do tonight, have fun. If it's your thing, enjoy the game. But take care of yourself-these urns won’t be available until next season.

Can they lose them all?

If Johnny Unitas, Joe Montana, and John Elway got together to mentor a quarterback, and he ended up like Ryan Leaf...

If Ted Williams, Babe Ruth, and Hank Aaron took over as hitting coaches, and their best student couldn’t out-hit Neifi Perez...

If Magic Johnson and Jason Kidd schooled a student in the art of pinpoint passing, but ended up with Kobe Bryant...

...would any of those be any more pathetic than Jackie Slater and Art Shell coaching Chad Slaughter today?

Yes, two of the finest tackles of anyone’s lifetime are the men in charge of motivating and molding the Human False Start. John Madden, a former Raiders coach himself, pointed out late in tonight’s Broncos-Raiders game that Slaughter was actually doing a decent job blocking when he was punctual. I’m pretty sure my man Elvis Dumervil would disagree, but even if it was true, the Raiders still aren’t going to beat anybody anytime soon.

Yes, the Chicago Bears are absolutely explosive and it appears, for the time being, that I grossly underestimated quarterback Rex Grossman. (I want to see him play at least once before I take it all back, though.) But the only perfect season I want to see this year is Oakland’s tour of unmatched ineptitude, now at 0-5 and counting.

Sadly, it could all end next week when Oakland hosts the Arizona Cardinals. In Andrew Walter and Matt Leinart, we’ll get to watch two young quarterbacks whose youth, interestingly enough, is their only asset. But if Oakland can sneak out of McAfee Coliseum (fine virus scanner, by the way, if heart-breakingly slow) with the “L”, they’re well on their way to a defeated season.

Consider the following opponents: home game against the Steelers, at Seattle, another Broncos game, at Kansas City, at San Diego...then it’s December, and the clock is ticking.

That December 3 home game against Houston looks almost as inviting as next week’s Cardinals game. But I’ve watched a lot of terrible Nuggets teams, and if there’s one thing I’ve learned, it’s how much bad teams relish annihilating the truly awful ones.

Maybe you think it can’t be done. A blocked kick here, a broken tackle there-surely the Raiders can upset somebody. Even the stacked Broncos prevailed by only ten points. The Raiders should win at least a couple. I think.

I hope they don’t. A winless season speaks to a certain sense of...humiliation, of desperation, and of knowing when to quit. If C.U. has given up on the quest, there’s no team I’d rather see take their place than the Oakland Raiders.

My thoughts on the baseball playoffs

1. The Yankees almost made my year.

I recently told a friend that Yankees manager Joe Torre was the best manager of the last 20 years. I'm not sure if that's really true, but he's clearly one of the very best in the game. Yes, like the chart on the link shows, he was under .500 at two of his first three jobs. Yes, it's much easier to manage when Mariano Rivera's in the bullpen than when your options don't hold all-time records. And most definitely yes, a monkey could learn the complex system of single-switches required to manage in the American League.

So Torre is human. But he's also a great manager and a great fit for New York. Playing for or coaching the Yankees is often treated as some kind of special situation, and there is pressure there, but I'm not sure it's all that tougher than managing in, say, Boston. That said, Torre's done a tremendous job managing the egos of the game's best-known and most-pampered players, while avoiding disastrous on-field moves that plague almost everyone else. The bottom line is, if the Yankees fired him, 28 teams would call his agent within five minutes. (In a cost-saving move, the Royals would mail him an offer, second-class.)

And I was really hoping the Yankees would fire him and that the Red Sox would immediately pick him up. That'd spice things up. I think that rivalry has flown under the radar for far too long.

2. The ALCS is a matchup everyone should like.

Parity-I'm not sure what that means, what it's supposed to mean, or why people want it so badly. Well, if you had thirty major-league teams, and all of them had an equal shot at the title, wouldn't you expect each team to win it all every thirty years or so? (Not that anyone associates baseball with parity, but bear with me.)

My point? The Tigers won the World Series in 1984-twenty-two years ago. There haven't been thirty teams that whole time, but it's still a little sensationalistic to categorize Tigers fans as long-suffering, since so many teams have waited much longer. But I am happy for Tigers fans, especially after recent seasons. (That is, unless those fans also support their local hockey team...)

The A's, on the other hand, I can wholeheartedly support. Why do we demand such manliness from athletes and settle for such whiny skirtiness from fans and management? An example: I saw an interview with a football player a couple weeks ago-wish I could remember who it was, but all non-Mannings would have said the same thing-and he was injured. Despite that, he vehemently denied that his injury had anything to do with any struggles on the field. I sat there thinking it was just ridiculous-I don't want to hear the guy whine, but how could an injury not affect his play?

The A's are sort of like that anonymous football player. Yes, they play in a relatively small market, or at least they share a good-sized market with the more-popular Giants. And they barely spend any money, and they barely earn any money, and it's obvious that they don't play the same game the Red Sox or Yankees do. But unlike management in some cities I could think of (Denver?), they don't just accept their lot, cry about it, and give up. Instead the A's take whatever washed-up veterans and underrated prospects they can get and go toe-to-toe with the big boys every year.

Of course, establishment baseball men point out the team's struggles in the playoffs-which is fair-but come to the erroneous conclusion that it's simply impossible for the team to compete. I admit that their style, especially in years past, wasn't perfectly suited for a short series, but it wasn't condemning them to a hopeless future, either.

Anyway, I've been a fan of the A's and their Moneyball style since well before the book, and I'm happy to see them advancing in the playoffs, even if they did lose last night.

3. The National League could surprise everyone.

All year, it's been nothing but, "The N.L. sucks, and all the good teams are in the A.L." Now I don't necessarily think the Cardinals or Mets will win it all-the A's are the only team I really care for-but it wouldn't be impossible for either to do so. Partly because they're good teams, and more because anything can happen in a seven-game series.

It just irks me whenever leagues or divisions are compared and people extrapolate these grand conclusions about the individual teams therein. Remember the 2004 Detroit Pistons, from the pathetic Eastern Conference? Can you recall the Texas Longhorns of earlier this year, whose Big XII was clearly the Pac-10's inferior? (Clearly to everyone but me, at least.) My favorite example, of course, is the 1997 Broncos, who hailed from the eternal runner-up AFC. These teams, and many more in similar situations, won it all. I couldn't care less which league is better, but you can, if you want. Just don't fall into this common "logical" trap.

Just my luck, they're right on time

How about them Broncos!

It wasn’t very long into yesterday’s 13-3 win over the Baltimore Ravens that I realized the Broncos, still scoreless, were really in no trouble whatsoever. They’ve been playing slow, defensive-minded games and pulling them out their last two games, so why couldn’t they do it again?

It’s easy to call Denver’s new keep-it-close style conservative, but that misses at least half the point. Compared to the offensive firepower the team showcased in recent years, the current gameplan is, in fact, far more risky. What happens when the other team gets the interception before halftime and kills one of our only scoring chances? (I know it's incredible that I could even suggest Jake Plummer messing up like that, but he is only human.)

What I can’t tell is whether the grind-it-out style was only an adjustment to the teams we’ve faced or if it’s fast becoming a permanent fixture in the offense. Against Baltimore, it makes sense to take time off the clock, since the only way they’re scoring is if you give them plenty of opportunities. (I love Steve McNair, but despite his resurgence, that is not a potent offense.) Of course, it makes sense to control the ball against anyone if you can, but Baltimore’s defense is more likely than most to make you pay for mistakes in the passing game.

This brings us to the most shocking on-screen graphic I’ve seen in years, and which many of you saw last night. I can’t remember if there was a time period restriction on it (those infamous baseball-style “Since Nov. 22, 1987,”-type stats), but it had a list of the top quarterbacks in terms of wins by three or fewer points, and the list went, from first to third, Dan Marino, John Elway, and Jake Plummer.

My question: is that a sign of actual ability, or have those guys just played in a lot of close games? In Arizona, Plummer was known for winning games in the fourth quarter. While he hasn’t really had any memorable comeback wins for the Broncos, he has spearheaded a number of late drives for wins or crucial insurance points. This year, he’s done it three times in four games. I’d say that’s pretty good.

Can we count on it to continue? Maybe. Personally, I think the fact that Mike Shanahan is even considering trying to win games this way is a huge vote of confidence in Plummer. Do you realize how much the Broncos are relying on him now?

Obviously, the real star last night was the defense, and Champ Bailey’s pick in the end zone the clear play of the game. Is the D good enough to carry us through the regular season, or does the offense have to pick it up? Can the offense pick it up? Is a deep playoff run already out of the question, or are we a 3-1 team that still has room to improve?

---------------------------

Hole Punch Sports has recently come under fire from someone far too cowardly to comment here for excessive Broncos coverage. I kind of agree, though I went ahead with this, obviously...but let me know what y’all think.

Brett Favre and the Hall of Fame

Can you play your way out of the Hall of Fame?

That’s the question that comes to my mind lately whenever someone brings up Brett Favre. Favre, of course, is the longtime Green Bay Packers quarterback who won a record three Associated Press league MVP awards. (He shared his final award, in 1997, with Barry Sanders.) He’s also a member of the most elite class of sports heores in America: franchise quarterbacks who’ve won the Super Bowl.

His talent was and remains off the charts. Unbelieveable arm strength from any of a thousand release points. Accuracy from the pocket, on the run, falling backwards, or over defenders. Great mobility and improvisation, especially in his younger years. And his toughness-oh my, but we’ll get to that later.

Not only that, he’s now considered (if a bit inaccurately) to be the last remaining symbol of loyalty in team sports. He’s certainly had to clout to ask to be traded to a winner for his last few seasons. And, conversely, he’s certainly given his team cause to look in other directions, yet they’ve stood by him.

Last year Favre led the league with room to spare by throwing 29 interceptions. Would he come back? Will the Packers bench the franchise and start building for the future by playing Aaron Rodgers?

(When Aaron Rodgers is your best bet for future success, your franchise has problems outside of just the quarterback position.)

Favre, of course, came back. He’s off to a rocky start-statistically, he’s had two fine games and two abysmal ones. It’s funny-in his first few years, he was immune to criticism. Now he’s become immune to praise. People all over the country can’t wait to say he should have retired-or, more absurdly, that the Packers should cut him.

Any football fan can tell you Favre has been going downhill for several years now. Really? The numbers don’t bear that out in the slightest, except that he was bad last year. That said, his go-for-broke mentality-long his most-admired trait-may backfire the most in the playoffs. He threw six picks against the Rams in the playoffs following the 2001 season, and chucked another four to Vikings defenders after 2004. But even his playoff performances-statistically anyway-haven’t really been all bad. (You have to scroll down that link to see postseason numbers.)

If it’s not obvious yet, I still think Favre’s a first-ballot Hall of Famer, no questions asked. But his legacy will never be the same. By the time he comes up for Hall of Fame consideration, his MVP trophies will be at least fifteen years old, and his historic prime will be but a distant memory. And it taints everything else he’s done-his painkiller addiction, once swept under the rug, is just one more talking point for armchair analysts on the bury-Favre bandwagon. He was the toughest QB ever-now he’s Barry Bonds in shoulder pads.

Of course, it’s not fair to consider decade-and-a-half-old events and not the more recent past, and Favre’s last few years should certainly count against him-I just think his struggles have been blown way out of proportion. What’s interesting, though, is how much Favre’s early fame will count against him in terms of public sentiment. If he hadn’t been so popular when he was young, no one would be so quick to deride him now.

Let’s look at a more borderline candidate: Jerome Bettis. Bettis ran for more than 13,000 yards in his career-good enough for top-five, all-time. But while Bettis was a dangerous young player, his production really tailed off his last few years. Yes, he was injured. Not to be heartless, but so were countless other backs-like the superior Terrell Davis.

Do you remember ever hearing discussion of Bettis’ Hall of Fame chances before his last season? I don’t. But his syrupy-sweet storybook ending overshadowed the obvious: his decline bagan a long, long time ago. While he’d always been more of a power runner than a distance guy (an understatement if there ever was one), he averaged more than four yards a carry only once after 1997. (Check his career stats here for a more complete picture.)

By the end of his career, he morphed into primarily a short-yardage back-a tremendous, tough-to-stop short-yardage back, capable of starring on occasion-but a role player nonetheless. Is that somehow better than having one awful year in a career full of great ones?

While Bettis’ on-field performance should have been, by any reasonable standard, hurting his shot at Hall of Fame glory, his personality, perseverance, and superstar quarterback may have played him right into the Hall. I just think that’s funny.

Second half notes

1. Javon Walker...wow. Nice run.

2. Speaking of Walker, Madden said that Mike Shanahan likes having a receiver who wants the ball on every play. As opposed to Ashley Lelie, whose catchphrase was, "I'll show you the money!"

3. Tony Scheffler, the rookie tight end, is interesting. One on hand, he clearly has size and ability. On the other, he plays like he just went through a growth spurt and isn't yet coordinated enough for his size. I'm just saying.

4. D.J. Williams destroyed Kevin Faulk near the end of the game, but Faulk just bounced back up. Manly.

5. Stat of the night: I can't believe Mike Shanahan's regular-season winning percentage with Plummer is better than it was with Elway. In Shanahan's first year with Elway the Broncos didn't have much of a team, while Plummer was more of the last piece of a puzzle. But still. That is incredible. Those Super Bowl years really spoiled me, and I'm definitely too hard on the Broncos now. Is this what it feels like to be a Yankees fan?

6. Tom Brady looked impressive on that ten-for-ten drive with a touchdown. Yes. It is good to connect on every pass. That said, I was scared to death of him coming into this game. He's the best football player in the world, and this was first crack at the only team that ever beat him in the playoffs. And he was at home. I fully expected the Patriots to come out gangbusters tonight, but they didn't. I know they're not the Patriots anymore, but still. That was a great win.

First half thoughts (Broncos at Patriots)

1. I feel bad for Patriots tackle Matt Light-who's already back in the game-but if I never see another knee injury in a slow-motion replay, I think I'll be okay with that.

2. The Jake Plummer-Mike Shanahan argument after the field-goal drive: Obviously, I don't know what happened, though I enjoyed Madden's incredibly vague take, which basically boiled down to: "Either Mike's mad at Jake, or Jake's mad at Mike, or they're both mad." But Plummer was catching fire on that drive and the Broncos still had room to work with when they switched into pound-the-ball mode. I'm a big fan of the running game, but if I was Plummer, I'd have been ticked, too. When the Patriots answered with a similar drive right after, they kept the ball in Tom Brady's hands throughout (though the Broncos ended up forcing and blocking a field goal).

4. Lawrence Maroney is a beast. Al Wilson got a good-if-not-great hit on him on a shovel pass. Maroney just absorbed it like it was nothing and ran up the left side for nineteen yards. I've never seen someone do that on a Wilson hit before.

5. On the Broncos' side, I'm happy with the move to Tatum Bell on a full-time basis. Since when does a Broncos tailback make it to his third year without getting a real shot? Tatum Bell has the skills to be a star, though he hasn't put it all together yet. I can't wait to see what he can do if he keeps the job this season.

6. I hope the NBC show "Heroes" fails miserably. It hasn't reached Fox/World Series levels yet, and I don't even watch NBC that much-but I'm so sick of those ads. "I walked through fire and I didn't get burned." Shut up. It would probably be worth fishing shards of glass out of my hands to reach through the TV and try to slap those people.

7. I guess Javon Walker is worth giving up a second-round pick. But he could have left that dance in Green Bay.

Jail for reporters...maybe

As you've heard, Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wade, the reporters who wrote "Game of Shadows", could be heading to prison. This Associated Press story on SI.com has the details in the clearest form I've seen them.

In fact, why don't I just quote the first two paragraphs:

A federal judge ordered two San Francisco Chronicle reporters jailed Thursday, pending an appeal, for refusing to testify about who leaked them secret grand jury testimony from Barry Bonds and other elite athletes.

Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada published a series of articles and a book based partly on the leaked transcripts of the testimony of Bonds, Jason Giambi and others before a grand jury investigating the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative, a Burlingame-based nutritional supplement company exposed as a steroid ring two years ago.

Got that? They're not going to jail for telling the truth, and they're not going to jail for writing about the leaked testimony. (I'm not sure how much, if any, trouble they'd be in if they'd printed it but were cooperating now. Help me out, Cap.) If the reporters do go to jail, it's because they received the leaked testimony and refused to testify as to how they got it.

I admit that I am inclined to give reporters the benefit of almost every doubt. This was, if not an incredibly important story, certainly one that engaged the public interest. (While it's fashionable for sports fans to claim they don't care what athletes do or use, I think they say that only because it's easier than thinking.) And I guess I'm glad we found out what was said behind closed doors. That said, I can't shake the feeling that maybe grand jury testimony is secret for a reason.

A free press is critical to a free society, no doubt about it. But if the president's not above the law, I certainly don't think reporters should be. Besides, what is a reporter anyway? I've never broken news on this site, but many bloggers have-does that make them reporters? And can't anyone set up a blog in a few minutes? You see where I'm going with that, right? I think we can all tell a serious reporter from someone who's desperately seeking legitimacy, but I don't know how to make a legal standard for that even if we decided we did want to grant reporters additional legal protection.

I have a ton of respect for Williams and Fainaru-Wade and their professional ethics. I know I certainly wouldn't want to give up a year and a half of my life to keep a source secret.

What do you think? Should they go to jail for this? Should they be willing to?

Two Weeks In

I almost got hit by a car today. Remember those old "Must Be Football Season" ads? Like the one where office workers celebrated by slapping each other on the butt, or the one where a shopper drops fruit on the floor at the grocery store and everyone dives to try to recover the fumble? Great ads, especially since I can't remember who was running them. (I'm thinking maybe Southwest Airlines, but what does football have to do with flying?) Well, my morning was like that.

I work at a university, so I just walk out onto the crosswalk assuming everyone will stop. When I'm driving I hate this, which is why I don't drive on campus. I knew a car was coming, but surely they'd see me. Soon I realized that the car to my left was a Jeep-and not a Wrangler, but a big SUV-and the driver not only wasn't slowing down, he or she was probably speeding up. So I burst forward and instinctively stuck out my left arm, as though I was going to stiff-arm a Jeep. Luckily, for the car's sake, homeboy hit the brakes and swerved and it didn't come to that. It was-well, maybe you had to be there. Moving on to the Broncos:

Offensive struggles: The Broncos can't score this year. Last season the offense got off to a horrific start but the team, changing strategies after a particularly insightful HPS post, turned things around quickly.

Last year the problem was easy to solve. Plummer was playing terribly, but the real issue was that the Broncos had completely abandoned their run game. Once they resumed rushing forward and breaking knees backwards, the season was back on track.

This time, it's not that simple. Statistically, the Broncos' running game is great, ranking fourth in the league with 153 yards per game and picking up five yards per rush. (Tatum Bell, not Mike, is leading the way.)

But the aerial game is terrifyingly bad. Jake Plummer has a rating of 38.6, which is actually a point lower than his rating would be had he thrown solely incompletions. Now, obviously, if the Broncos didn't complete a single pass they would have lost both games. In other words, passer ratings are useless. That said, the Snake has thrown four picks (and no touchdowns) after throwing seven picks all of last season.

In any event, the team is averaging 9.5 points per game. Good for a stopgap point guard, bad for an NFL team. So what can the Broncos do? Is it time for Jay Cutler to get some PT? Of course not. Right now the NFL's top three rated passers are Rex Grossman, David Carr, and Philip Rivers-or, in other words, it's still really early. That said, just because the Broncos recovered from a slow start last year, that doesn't guarantee they will this time. I hope Plummer's not feeling sorry for himself, because the team will need him to play better.

Defensive success: It's a good thing the defense has held it down for the most part. The pass defense has been its typical fantastic regular-season self. The team has given up a lot of rushing yards, but they've faced Stephen Jackson and Larry Johnson the first two weeks. Best of all, they haven't given up a touchdown. I don't really know why though, since I've barely watched, but I just thought you should know.

Javon Walker: I'm surprised how much it bugs me to see someone wearing No. 84. I know it's not retired, but for a split second I think it's Shannon Sharpe and when I remember it's not, I cry.

That said, the trade for Walker is shaping up to be quite the steal after his performance in crunch time Sunday. He had back-to-back catches on the game-tying possession in the fourth-quarter, and then made a sweet adjustment to catch that 24-yard pass on the overtime drive.

It was especially heartwarming to see since Rod Smith was on the sideline with a concussion (The Denver Post reports that he should be probable for Sunday's road game against the Patriots). The last pass-catcher we had who could step up in Smith's absence wore No. 84, too.