What I've missed

1. Whenever I've walked through the mall the last few months, I've always stopped and pondered the "Tulowitzki" No. 2 Rockies jersey at one of the kiosks. Was that an actual player, or just an example of a personalized jersey?

Turns out that's Troy Tulowitzki, the 22-year-old shortstop who's hit 24 homers and knocked in 98 runs this season. And I had no idea who he was. In other words, no, I haven't followed the Rockies this year.

It wasn't always this way. I don't know how many Rockies games I watched in the late '90s, but it was a ton. I followed some pretty horrible teams like crazy.

But a few years ago it became pretty clear to me that the Rockies weren't really trying to win anymore. Management had milked the initial excitement dry, and wasn't interested in risking the money to make the team relevant again. When the team traded Larry Walker in 2004--in other words, when my favorite team got rid of my favorite player--I was actually glad, because he'd have a chance to win before he retired. (Did Bruins fans feel the same way about Ray Borque?)

And whenever anyone tried to get me excited about the Rockies' late-season run the last couple weeks, I just felt like I knew they wouldn't make it. They made it, all right, by forcing a one-game playoff for the playoffs tomorrow night against San Diego. I'm watching that for sure, and probably their whole playoff run. (For discussion below: Are my actions at all excusible, or am I the worst kind of fair-weather fan?)

The Rockies have an 89-73 record, tied for second-best in the National League. They've outscored their opponents this year by a League-best 101 runs. (A few teams in the AL have done better, though.) It sucks that baseball's playoffs so often come down to who's able to line up their pitching, but all things being equal, if the Rockies win tomorrow they're legit World Series contenders.

2. I was travelling Saturday and missed the entire Colorado-Oklahoma game. Obviously, I really wish I would've seen it.

What I wish I'd missed

1. The Broncos' game today against the Colts. Actually, I did skip most of this one. I hate the friggin' Colts, who picked up 226 yards on the ground. (I'm sensing a theme this season.) Actually, many of the stats were pretty even for both teams, except for Cutler v. Manning, which went about as you'd expect. I'm not sure what to do about that.

Holy Super Bowl contenders, Batman!

For your consideration and pleasure, I hereby present the following facts after two weeks of NFL play:

Denver Broncos quarterback Jay Cutler has thrown just two touchdowns this year to three interceptions.

The Broncos have needed last-minute heroics from Jason Elam to save face against teams like Buffalo and Oakland. (Against Oakland, they even needed a timeout that even I'd call cheap, had the opponent been anyone else.)

The team is scoring just 19 points per game.

Oh, and the Cincinnati Bengals and Cleveland Browns put up ridiculous numbers Sunday, combining for 96 points and over 1,000 yards of offense.

And now the question: who has the top offense in the NFL?

The answer, of course, is the Denver Broncos.

Who has the top defense in the NFL? The New England Patriots. In this ranking, the Broncos tumble all the way down to No. 2.

These official rankings are made solely by yardage, rather than points. (I hope this illuminates for you the foolishness of judging these things solely by yardage.) Having said that, if the Broncos are No. 1 in offense and No. 2 in defense this year, they're going to win the Super Bowl.

The offense has had its ups and downs, but some things have worked out really well.

1. Cutler's arm. Cutler still makes some weird decisions, including one crazy pass/fumble in Buffalo that almost cost the team the game. But he can make some impressive throws. I just wish people would stop comparing him to John Elway.

2. Travis Henry. A terrific back in a proven system...who could have predicted this would turn out well? 267 yards in two games puts him on an obscene pace.

3. The receiving corps. Javon Walker's great. Again, no shock. Brandon Marshall has been terrific, too. He was fine last year, but it was in limited action, and it's always nice when a guy can step it up full-time.

We've also got a third receiver now. By the way, you might have thought Dale Carter was a hard Bronco to root for, but try cheering for former Colt Brandon Stokley in a Brian Griese jersey.

4. The line. I can barely name half of them any more, but they're as solid as ever, and will only improve if Ben Hamilton ever comes back.

And the offense can get even better if Cutler continues to improve.

The defense has been fantastic in the passing game, holding both opposing quarterbacks under 100 yards. (They were J.P. Losman and Josh McCown, but still.)

Against the run? Not so much. The Broncos have given up 312 yards on the ground at 5.1 yards per carry. We're playing Jacksonville this week, but then it's at Indianapolis and a home game against San Diego. There are encouraging signs now, but after those games we'll know if the Broncos really have championship potential.

Forget Brett Favre (*)

From my 2007 NFL season preview:

Favre's not as good as he once was-who is?-but he's not the disgrace people make him out to be...I don't think he "deserves" to go out with another Lombardi or anything, but I hope he gets to leave on a good note.

Oops. What a mistake. And I even knew this day was coming. Let me say that Brett Favre deserves to go down in history with whatever records he earns, so long as a giant asterisk is placed by each and every one of them.

As you may have heard, Sunday's victory over the New York Giants made Favre the winningest quarterback in NFL history. I don't know what ESPN did on TV, but this record practically went unnoticed in the places I follow sports. But it's of crucial importance to me. Why?

"Maybe someday down the road it will mean a lot," a typically humble Favre said after the 149th win of his career, moving past Hall of Famer [and indisputable greatest quarterback of all time] John Elway.

Humble my...foot. Don't give me that aw-shucks garbage; Favre defiled the game with his drugged-up antics. Let's not forget his former addiction to vicodin. In other words, he's like Barry Bonds, if Bonds had ever actually been caught. (And if people were saying things like, "Forever will the NFL's record books be tainted by this shameful act.")

I don't think painkillers directly enhance performance the way steroids do, but I think they still help a ton in football. Can you imagine the physical anguish that most of those guys are in every Sunday? If someone had a way not to feel it so much, wouldn't that be a huge advantage? Wouldn't painkilliers help you play better and in more games than you might otherwise? And wouldn't that help you break career records?

And to cheat and break Elway's record...well, that's just inexcuseable.

* * *

In all seriousness, I like Brett Favre. I don't really care that he was hooked on painkillers more than a decade ago. When I look back on his career, I don't count it against him. And I think this record is way more impressive than the coverage of it would lead you to believe.

Now's a good time to compare Favre's legacy with Elway's. My favorite two Elway stats were these: first, he retired as the quarterback with the most career wins in NFL history, and second, he retired as the quarterback with the most Super Bowl starts in NFL history (and still holds that mark).

Favre will retire with better passing statistics than Elway, but I think Elway will be remembered more fondly. It's not because of the drugs, though, and it's not really because Elway's Broncos beat Favre's Packers in Super Bowl XXXII. It's because Favre peaked when he was so young.

The idea that Elway would be more respected historically would have been inconceivable back in the run-up to that matchup, when Elway was the aging warrior who might never win a title, and Favre was the defending champion with a ring-filled future. Who would have thought then that Elway would probably retire with more rings than Favre?

It's so funny to me looking back on it. Going into that game, Favre had won or shared the last three NFL MVP awards, and his team the year before had dominated from start to finish. Elway, on the other hand, had one MVP trophy with a decade's worth of dust on it, and his teams never really got the national respect Favre's did.

In a way, that game changed everything for both men. Elway finally won his coveted championship, then added another one the next year, seemingly just for kicks. Though Favre would be incredible-one of the best quarterbacks in the world-for years to come, his meteoric rise pretty much came to a stop once that game ended.

Favre has made it past the wild-card round just twice since Super Bowl XXXII. That's only once more than Elway, who retired in 1999.

Favre's continued to play, game after game after game, and usually at a high level. It's just not that impressive compared to what he'd done before that fateful day, when his team was upset on the game's biggest stage.

Elway never really peaked the same way for many reasons, some of which were outside of his control. Elway's awesome running ability, for example, diminished greatly as he grew older, but the addition of a running game and a real coach to his team allowed him to put up his best statistical seasons as he wrapped up his career.

Because Elway finished so strong, everyone's more understanding of his early struggles. Instead of, "Wow, Joe Montana kicked his butt," it's, "Remember the Drive?" With Favre, it's, "Why does he throw so many picks? He has to retire," and "Remember when we thought this guy was good?"

Elway was more consistently great over his career. Did Favre have a higher peak? It's so hard to say, but surely he was held in higher esteem during his career than Elway was. Three MVPs...it really is amazing.

Will time heal all wounds? Elway's stature has only grown in retrospect, and it's possible Favre's will do the same. But I just feel like Favre's reputation has taken too many hits the last few years. Both will go down as legends, but I think Elway will be respected more by average football fans.

The Patriots got off easy???

So say John Clayton on ESPN.com and Don Banks on SI.com.

By now you've heard that a Patriots assistant was caught videotaping the New York Jets' defensive signals Sunday. And that's where it gets hazy, and also easy to rationalize. I could swear I just read somewhere (though I can't find it) that the cameraman was on the Patriots' sideline. Wait, a dude on the other side of the field can see all your signs? Why does it matter if he has a video camera?

However, more recent reports say that the assistant was on the Jets' sideline. That's even worse! If you let an opponent come over to your sideline...during a home game...with a video camera...and a clear view of whoever's signaling the defensive plays...perhaps you're not sharp enough to deserve to win.

How bad is this? I'm not sure. I imagine teams try to steal signals all the time, though most of them are probably a little less brazen about it. It seems like the major issue here, from the league's standpoint, is the use of a video camera. Why that's the issue is puzzling to me, but the Patriots had already been warned about it, just like every other team. (I'm impressed with the league's ability to foresee that one of its teams would cheat so blatantly.)

Off-topic, but predictably, some of the Philadelphia Eagles are taking advantage of this golden opportunity to whine about losing the Super Bowl a few years ago. Never mind their terrifying clock "manangement" or the quarterback dry-heaving during the closing moments. (In Donovan McNabb's defense, if I was trying to bring my team back at the end of the Super Bowl, and I looked up in the huddle and saw Freddie Mitchell, I'd feel like throwing up too.)

To be fair, I can't tell if the Eagles are really whining or if this article is just reaching. I will say that the reporter's main evidence of cheating—that the Patriots were countering almost every Eagles blitz with a screen—is tenuous at best. The Eagles used to blitz on like every freaking down. It wasn't a good surprise tactic to begin with.

Anyway, the punishment is a $500,000 fine for coach Bill Belichick (a lot of money), a $250,000 fine for the Patriots (chump change to them), and draft-based punishment; specifically, the loss of a first-rounder next year "if" New England makes the playoffs.

The Patriots obviously a) broke a rule and b) were dumb enough to get caught, so they deserve a punishment. I think the first-round pick is a really steep price. (I also think half a million is steep, but I'm not sure it hurts the team any, and could even help them, if it somehow motivates Belichick more.)

The Patriots already have the Niners' first pick next year, too, so they'll get a player from the opening round regardless. That does not render the punishment meaningless, especially because the Patriots have such a good track record in the draft. I mean, if you took a first-rounder away from a team like the Raiders you'd probably be doing them a favor, because it would give them fewer chances to screw up.

But the Patriots could take someone good. A lot of draft picks don't pan out, but there are always good players available at the end of the first round. In 1999, with the last pick of the first round, the Broncos chose Al Wilson. Can you imagine if the Broncos had broken some rule, and the punishment was that Al Wilson never played a down for us? You can't tell me that's not a huge loss.

I expected the league to suspend Belichick, but they really wanted to send a message.

As Giants owner John Mara told the New York Times, "“The loss of a No. 1 draft pick is about as serious a penalty as you could impose. You could survive your coach being suspended a couple of weeks. But losing a No. 1 pick is far more devastating.”

To tape or not to tape?

Today I had church for three hours starting at 10 a.m. The Denver Broncos had their season opener starting at 11 a.m., and NFL games generally run around three hours. Since I went to church, I was sure to miss much of the game.

Thanks to the wonders of modern technology (TiVo, Media Center PCs or, in my case, the videocassette recorder), though, I didn't have to miss a single play. For years now, fans have been able to come home, watch the game from the start and, depending on their timing, maybe even catch up with the live broadcast. (In my case, I could wait until I was certain the game was over, rewind, and then enjoy, cursing myself only when I realized the tape cuts out with 15 seconds left.)

Anyway, various influences sought to keep me at the church past the conclusion of the meetings. And everyone who tried to keep me there thought it was okay to delay me...after all, I was TiVo-ing the game, wasn't I?

Absolutely not. I never have and, I pray, I never will record a game so I can watch it after it's over. I don't understand how some fans can live with the suspense. I can't. I love the Broncos so much that just knowing that they're safe is more important to me than getting to watch the whole game for my own selfish reasons.

Besides, today's game ended in spectacular fashion, with the team unable to stop the clock and Jason Elam running out and nailing the game-winner. So what do I do if my phone rings seconds after the finish? If I'm taping the game, do I just let it go to voice mail and hope no one ruins it for me? And then do I shut off the phone so I get no texts? Just seal myself off from the world? How is living in ignorance worth that effort, especially when the facts in the case are already settled?

I love the Broncos and have to know immediately if they've won or lost. Personally I feel like I already showed admirable restraint today in never retreating to my car radio and in Googling the score only twice.

What about you guys? Can any of you stand to watch a game and feel the pretend tension after it's already decided?

2007 NFL season preview

Some of my most loyal readers have asked when I'm doing my NFL preview this year. You guys now I did some preview stuff last year, right? And that I said the Chargers were going to suck?

Anyway, the answer is: right now. Rather than go through each team individually, I just want to focus on some key points.

1. It's the same old story, but New England and Indianapolis are the class of the NFL.

It's actually a fresh story to include Indianapolis in that class, as far as I'm concerned, but they obviously belong after last year's championship. Also, Peyton Manning looked terrific Thursday night, just devastating the Saints' defense. That's not necessarily impressive all by itself-remember how the Bears tore apart the Saints in last year's playoffs. However, I feel confident saying Manning is not a one-game wonder.

New England, of course, belongs in similarly vaunted territory before their season starts. Their offense upgraded with Randy Moss, one of the most breathtaking performers in league history. The team and superstar quarterback Tom Brady come into this year with something to prove, which has always been music to Pats fans' ears. My main concern is the number of games the Patriots play every year. Going deep into every postseason has stuffed almost an extra year of wear into the careers of guys like Brady. That's why I hesitate to hand them the trophy quite yet.

(By the way, New England at Indianapolis is November 4th.)

That's really it. Go ahead, name another team we have to respect as a contender right out of the gate.

2. A friend of mine keeps asking me: what's my NFC pick?

My NFC pick is nearly meaningless, because the AFC entrant should be king. But I keep saying Carolina.

Why? Look at their records in the John Fox era.

Basically, they play about .500 in even-numbered years, then go 11-5 and make deep playoff runs in odd years. 2003 ended with a trip to the Super Bowl. 2005 ended with an appearance in the NFC Championship game in Seattle, which was pretty impressive considering they were on their 10th-string running back when that game rolled around.

Now I don't really know that Carolina will run through the conference and go to the Super Bowl, but I think they deserve to be mentioned.

3. The Falcons will be better without Michael Vick? Not in your dreams.

Dog-lovers everywhere would love it if the noble Falcons soared without their quarterback, Mike Vick, and his shocking antics off the field. (That was in bad taste and I do apologize.) But sorry, people: your hopes and dreams are resting on the right arm of Joey Harrington. In other words, keep dreaming.

People forget this, because they hate him now, but Vick is a pretty good quarterback. Not great, not a Hall of Famer, but pretty good. Vick threw for 20 touchdowns against just 13 picks last year, and ran for more than a thousand yards. Yes, his completion percentage could have been higher, but some people act like the Falcons are a great team that just had a bad quarterback. I don't see Harrington as an improvement on Vick.

4. The AFC West is anyone's game this year. Anyone but Oakland's.

Some folks have noticed that Oakland's defense put up a real fight last year, finishing third in yardage against. Fabulous! In other news, they went 2-14 with that defense. So don't get too excited yet.

That's not all, though. Discussions of Oakland's offense this year will no longer include the words, "bed and breakfast". Credit where it's due: there's no way the new coaching staff will be worse than the old, and Daunte Culpepper is potentially a major step up at quarterback. But the Raiders sucked for a million reasons last year, and-as you'd expect-many of those reasons still exist.

5. What about Kansas City?

The Chiefs were a playoff team last year. They elected to go home quickly rather than just start their good quarterback, though. Now they're ready to rely just as heavily on Larry Johnson, who carried a huge workload last year. IF he stays healthy, they have a shot in the division.

6. San Diego?

As far as disappointing lifer coaches go, I like Marty Schottenheimer more than Norv Turner. I really wish the Chargers would have brought the same team back for another run but, sadly, they elected to shake it up.

That said, at least three Chargers (LaDainian Tomlinson, Antonio Gates, and Shawne Merriman) can claim to be the best in the league at their respective positions. (With Eli Manning, it could have been four.) Though I don't really root for other teams in Denver's division, I hope we don't look back on this team as one of the all-time great missed opportunities. I think they're the favorites in the AFC West.

7. Denver?

I'm more puzzled about this Denver team than any in a while. They be good, or they could take Jay Cutler's 2-3 pace and run with it for a whole season. I just don't know.

Running back Travis Henry is a terrific acquisition and should be a weapon out of the backfield all year long. Dré Bly is another newcomer and, I think, a terrific fit opposite All-World corner Champ Bailey. On the other hand, the Broncos lost Al Wilson and Jake Plummer.

Probably the most interesting subplot is how the team will respond to the tragic deaths of Darrent Williams and Damien Nash in the offseason. Star receiver Javon Walker was with Williams when he died. I wonder how Walker and Plummer would have bonded this year. Plummer was good friends with his former Arizona Cardinals teammate Pat Tillman, who was killed in Afghanistan.

It's been reported that Walker is more motivated than ever this year, in football and in life. I can't remember thinking even once last year, though, that Walker needed to play better. He was off the charts already. It's really just a sad situation, but I don't think the Broncos will over- or under-perform because of their losses.

Besides, there are so many questions yet to be answered. How will Cutler play in a full season as quarterback? Can Bailey possibly be that good again? (He can, and he will.) Will the defense wear down again?

I think I'm leaning towards a 10-6 finish, but maybe I'm just getting too excited for tomorrow...

8. What other AFC teams should be good?

I've yet to mention the New York Jets or Baltimore Ravens, both playoff teams last year. The Jets were, in my opinion, ridiculously overrated last year. 10-6 is nice, but it doesn't make your coach one of the game's elites. Could they sneak back into the playoffs? Sure, but I'd bet against it.

The Ravens were 13-3 last year behind a fantastic defense and one of my favorite quarterbacks of 1999, Steve McNair. Two division opponents, the Cincinnati Bengals and Pittsburgh Steelers, had weird seasons and finished 8-8 last year. I think any of those three teams can take the North, and I think any other can take a wild-card spot. If I had to guess, I'd say the Steelers and Ravens will make the playoffs.

9. The NFC has some noteworthy teams, right?

The Saints got destroyed on Thursday, but I'm not too worried. Maybe as a Broncos fan, I've just become immune to Indianapolis' blowouts. It is odd they couldn't do anything offensively the other night. Sure, the Colts won the Super Bowl, but it wasn't on the strength of their defense. I think the game just kind of snowballed on them and doesn't mean they'll go 5-11. The Saints should still be good. But their last two games (against Indy and against the Bears in the playoffs) make me think they're not real champonship contenders.

The Cowboys were only 9-7 last year, sort of shocking considering the immense hype around them. I think Tony Romo can recover from his botched hold. But...but...but...this team went from Bill Parcells to Wade Phillips. Sometimes players really respond to a new coach after a disciplinarian leaves, but I don't think the team actually gets any better, if that makes any sense. Even if their record improves, the Cowboys won't be any more of a threat in the postseason. And how Phillips will handle having T.O. on his team? Poorly, maybe? Could it be poorly?

The Bears play in a pretty easy division. Lovie Smith's a fine coach and a good public leader. Brian Urlacher's a well-known force. Devin Hester cannot be contained in the return game. Rex Grossman has more room for improvement than almost anybody. They really should make it back to the playoffs.

The Seattle Seahawks went to the Super Bowl in early 2006, then faltered a little last year as Shaun Alexander and Matt Hasselbeck fought through injuries. That backfield is so talented, though, that they'll be a force if both stay healthy. A force by NFC standards, anyway.

10. Is this Brett Favre's last year?

You know, Brett Favre can play forever for all I care. I don't get why he's the laughingstock of the league at this point, I really don't. Have his skills declined? Sure. That's what happens when you get older. It's not really that shameful.

John Elway got to retire on top, but even the best of the best don't usually get to do that. Jerry Rice had a couple of 800-yard years in San Francisco, then was cut and allowed to play for a team in basically the same city. Dan Marino left after a humiliating 62-7 playoff defeat against the Jaguars, who weren't even really that good to begin with. Rice's quarterbacks, Joe Montana and Steve Young, didn't exactly leave the game on their own terms.

Favre's not as good as he once was-who is?-but he's not the disgrace people make him out to be. Seeing the grey-haired Favre get choked up at the end of the Packers' last game a year ago was probably my favorite moment of the while season. I don't think he "deserves" to go out with another Lombardi or anything, but I hope he gets to leave on a good note.

Sell out with me oh yeah

It's a great week to be alive. New iPods tomorrow, the NFL season opener on Thursday and, best of all, we're just one month away from egg nog season.

So if I confess now, it may fly under the radar: I traded in my beloved All-Pro 2K8 towards the latest edition of Madden. A friend of mine absolutely begged me to play him in Madden (online) and, tragically, I gave in.

Always stick by your principles. Put simply, Madden sucks. Well, it's OK, but it has some "features" that make me homicidal. A quick example: in this year's game, they made the "A" button, which snaps the ball, also be the button that sends a man in motion. Why?, I cried. So now the game sends your guy in motion, then automatically snaps the ball for you at the precise instant he's set. Cutting-edge technology at work. If you're me, though, you think, "what's going on, why isn't the play starting?" and press "A" again, which means that next month, when the play eventually does begin, you'll immediately throw an incomplete pass at the feet of your "A" receiver, typically the tight end. This is folly. Eventually I'll adjust, eh?

Also, Madden 08 is a turnover-fest that makes NFL Blitz feel fair. (Though Blitz rocked.) I really don't hate the Madden series, just this game. I also think the name sucks, because Madden doesn't announce your game any more. Instead some random dude just announces the whole thing by himself. (I miss Madden's insightful lines, such as this gem from a kick return for a score in 2003: "That guy's like the Magna Carta. History.")

All-Pro was more to my liking, but frankly, I was a little disappointed in both games this year. (Neither is as good as the 2K5 or 2005 editions.) Hopefully next year, when the Xbox 360 will be on its FOURTH freaking edition of Madden, we'll finally have a new football game worth shelling out the cash for.