The Devin Question

I realize I'm a little late on this, but I wanted a little time to think about it. At this point, I have heard way too many people blame the Denver Broncos' loss to the Chicago Bears on Sunday on Denver's decision to kick to Devin Hester.

I have some problems with this. The first is how much I hate it when games are blamed completely on individual plays or players. Yes, it's possible for a guy to play so poorly that he negates the efforts of everyone else, but it's very rare. Can a player win a game single-handedly? I guess, theoretically, but I've never seen it.

More to the point, why shouldn't the Broncos kick to Devin Hester?

Don't get me wrong. Hester is an incredible punt returner, and perhaps the most effective weapon in Chicago's arsenal. He's a threat to change the course of a game every time he touches the ball.

Hester's so fast, his speed rating in this year's Madden is the first time in the game's history where a player received a score of 100 in any category.*

But does Hester take kicks back so frequently that teams have to live in mortal fear of him? No. ESPN.com has him down for eighty punt returns in his career, six of which have gone for touchdowns (7.5%). He's scored four times on his fifty-one career kick returns (7.8%). Now, that's more often than most anyone else; but the odds whether he'll score a touchdown on any given kick are clearly in the covering team's favor. (Those are regular-season stats, and he did score on the opening kick in last year's Super Bowl, too.)

The biggest problem, really, is that Hester got ten chances to make a return Sunday (five on punts, five on kickoffs). But outside of his touchdowns, he wasn't really that dangerous. That sounds stupid, because it is, but it's not that he can't be stopped, just that the Broncos didn't stop him on those particular plays.

The Hester situation reminds me a lot of Barry Bonds, especially considering how inept the rest of his team's scoring options can be. But if there's one thing I've hated in recent years, it's how some teams have been too terrified even to pitch to Bonds. Instead of giving it their best shot, they send a pitcher out there, in front of literally thousands of people, and wave the white flag, saying, "I'm/We're not man enough to challenge you." (What's the shame in giving up a homer to someone everyone thinks cheated anyway?)

The worst offender, of course, was the Anaheim Angels of 2003, who faced a lights-out Bonds in the World Series and pitched to him only when the games were out of hand. Are you really the best if you have to exploit a rule that lets you give a guy a base when you know you can't hold him to just one? Of course not. The Angels winning it all, now there's something that deserves an asterisk.

Fortunately, and this is my other point, the NFL has no such rule. Hester's second touchdown came on a kickoff return. You know you can't just angle those out-of-bounds at the two, right? What were the Broncos supposed to do, Einstein? They can squib it, but the Bears would have ended up with the ball around the 35 or 40 anyway. Punts are a different story, but I doubt Sauerbrun's sideline precision would make anyone forget Mike Horan as it is. The Broncos took a chance, and it cost them the game, but gosh, that's better than not taking chances at all, isn't it?

Sports are supposed to be about entertainment and competition, and I'm glad the Broncos didn't take the easy road out. Line 'em up, go toe-to-toe, and see who comes out on top. Teams: by all means, be cautious. Don't make it easy on Hester, who doesn't need you to anyway. But giving up a touchdown is a lot better than quitting in front of everyone.

 

* = While we're on football videogame news, and you guys are welcome for my not making a whole post about this, but my favorite megacorporation news of the week is Microsoft adding the Xbox version of ESPN NFL 2K5 to its Xbox 360 backwards compatibility list. Yes!

(Buffaloes, Buffaloes.) Go CU!

Colorado dominated Nebraska with its running game Friday. Hmmm, when have I seen that before?

With a final score (65-51) that resembled an NBA Eastern Conference playoff game more than a Big XII rivalry showdown, the Buffs-Cornhuskers game was a thrilling conclusion to Colorado's regular season. Go ahead and credit the now on-again efficiency of quarterback Cody Hawkins, but never forget the Buffs' star tailback. Right now that's Hugh Charles (169 yards), who managed just three touchdowns Friday. (Yes, that was sarcasm.)

The game was troublesome in the first half, with Nebraska taking a 35-24 lead into the break. But almost as soon as Colorado's troubles started, they were a distant memory. Interception return for a touchdown. Then Charles scored to take the lead, and did it again to widen the gap. The game was 44-35, but the Buffs weren't finished. Hawkins chucked a touchdown pass to the corner, and then Charles completed his second-half hat trick. Nebraska scored a couple of late touchdowns, which saved face, just not coach Bill Callahan's job. (And that's bad news for Colorado fans, if you ask me.)

Colorado's 34-0 run in the second half was clearly the key to the game. OK, that's about the dumbest thing I've ever written, and it's time to come clean. I missed most of the game Friday, a lot of it because I was shopping. Just shut up. However, since pretty much everyone here went to CU, why don't you loyal fans let me know what I missed?

The King & The Man Who Would Be

I've said several times that Barry Bonds didn't cheat at baseball, since he, you know, didn't break any of the rules of baseball. A common comeback to me is, but Mike, he took steroids, and that's against the law. One imaginative fellow even asked me a few months back if I would have considered it okay for Bonds to have killed several opposing players, in order to give himself a competitive edge. Technically, that's not cheating. I am okay saying that this hypothetical is way worse. (I'm so grateful I was raised with morals that extend beyond the limits of the rules of professional sports.)

Anyway, if a player cheats at baseball, you can suspend him, you can ban him, you can even put asterisks next to his performances if you're into punctuative vengeance. But if he breaks the law? You go ahead and indict him.

Barry Bonds, baseball's home run king, was indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice Thursday and could go to prison instead of the Hall of Fame for telling a federal grand jury he did not knowingly use performance-enhancing drugs.

Tarnation. He's not going to prison instead of the Hall of Fame. It's possible Bonds'll go to both. Today it seems unlikely that he'll make the Hall, but it's too early to know. I'm in no mood to make predictions. It's just a sad story, especially considering how easily Bonds would have made the Hall of Fame even before he was under any suspicion.

Despite his prowess in all areas of the game, Bonds will be best-remembered as a player for his season and career home-run records. The Yankees' highly-despised and highly-paid third baseman, Alex Rodriguez, is widely recognized as the man with the best chance of breaking Bonds' career home run mark.

This put Rodriguez in an interesting spot this offseason. Long reviled for his $250 million contract, Rodriguez had the chance to save his reputation once and for all.

If I were in A-Rod's shoes, that's what I would have focused on this summer. Just go around, make your visits as an ambassador of the game, and keep the money talk on the back burner. Just emphasize how badly you want to keep playing and break the record. Rodriguez started his career as a giant shortstop, which led to inevitable comparisons to Cal Ripken, Jr. But if he had kept his head down, left the Yankees (who everyone hates), and broken Bonds' record, he could have held the same title Cal once did: The Man Who Saved the Game.

And if'd he'd done that, don't you think he could have made up all that contract money and then some in love and endorsements?

Instead, Rodriguez and his agent, Scott Boras, asked for a ridiculous $350 million from New York, forgetting somehow that only the Yankees could afford to pay that. New York elected not to outbid itself. Boras, frankly, pulled a Drew Rosenhaus with this move. Remember when Rosenhaus was a great agent, sure to get T.O. huge money from Philly...and then it all blew up in his face? This is just like that.

Today, A-Rod seems poised to sign a still-obscene 10-year, $275 million deal to stay with New York. He and Boras got a ton of money, but the Yankees made them look like fools.

A-Rod may even get a bonus if he breaks Bonds' career mark someday. Whoop-de-doo. At this point, that just reaffirms what many fans already think: that's he's only in it for the money. And that's why the thought of A-Rod breaking Bonds' record, now matter how much that record brings shame to the sport, doesn't warm anyone's heart.

Nuggets at 2-0

I didn't write any kind of NBA preview before the season started. Now that the season is .06% out of the way, it feels like cheating to say anything now. Nevertheless, here are some thoughts I have on the Nuggets.

Last year the Nuggets were just 45-37, which was a disappointment any way you slice it. Yes, Carmelo Anthony missed 15 games to a suspension following the "fight" in Madison Square Garden. But the team went 7-8 without him, which really isn't bad, and acquired a future Hall of Famer in Allen Iverson. So they should have surged when Carmelo came back. For whatever reason, they didn't.

So what makes this year any different? Well, Iverson and Carmelo will benefit from their experience last year. But more importantly, I think they'll benefit from spending an off-season knowing they'd be on this team together. It's not so much that they didn't play well together last year-despite everyone predicting they were too selfish to mix, both players handled last year very well-it's just that they never really felt like a team. Adding Iverson during Melo's suspension made the Nuggets feel more like an All-Star team. They had a lot of talent, but they didn't have clear roles or play together the way real teams do. That's more the fault of circumstance than of the players.

This year will be different, or at least that's how I felt watching the first quarter of the Nuggets' first game, a 17-point home victory over Seattle. I'm not sure how to describe it. The Nuggets have talked about being an up-tempo team for probably all of their history. In the '90s and early '00s, pushing the pace was supposed to be the key to get us back to the playoffs. Even as the Nuggets have improved the last few years, they would outrun teams for long stretches, but it's never looked as natural as it did Wednesday. It was a perfect combination of speed and tempo control, but without a forced effort that couldn't be sustained. Credit Coach Karl for that. I don't want to read too much into it, but it seems clear that the Nuggets will have their best team of the Carmelo era this year.

However, questions still abound. Do the Nuggets have the frontcourt to hang with the big boys out West? If the big boys are the Spurs, then probably not. Marcus Camby can hold it down against most centers in the NBA, but Nene still plays young at times. Kenyon Martin is back, but will he have the attitude and patience to be a valuable contributor? History suggests he won't, but then he has to know he won't be the star of a team with friggin' Allen Iverson on it. I'll give K-Mart a chance. I'm not really excited about our guards who aren't the Answer, either. Chucky Atkins is a solid veteran, though he starts the season hurt. That's not good for a 33-year-old. Yakhouba Diawara is mostly memorable to me for missing a ton of threes during Iverson's Nuggets debut last year. I don't expect much from him.

The Nuggets should win their division this year and go to the second round of the playoffs behind the strength of Camby and their two superstars. Barring a Rockies-like miracle run, I think the team is still too thin for fans to expect much more.

I'm rooting for a tie

I'm watching the New England Patriots at Indianapolis Colts game right now, wondering if there will be any point to the rest of the season. Both teams are undefeated, and most feel that today's winner (whoever that is) will go on to win the Super Bowl.

I don't disagree. Since the Patriots are on the road, I think they become pretty clear Super Bowl favorites if they win today. (Perhaps they already should be, considering their college football-like margins of victory). If Indianapolis wins by, say, 10, I think you'd have to consider them the overwhelming championship favorites.

I believe some other teams have a shot this year, but I still don't know which teams those are. I'd be happy for Brett Favre if Green Bay can keep up its miracle season. It'd be good to see the Cowboys make the Super Bowl, if only to see their fans emerge from the woodwork, and then disappear just as quickly after the inevitable title game defeat. (At least, that's how every Cowboys fan I've ever met would handle it.) And I'd be thrilled if the Broncos could put up more than one score against the Lions.

Having said all that, there's nothing in the NFL more boring than a team that dominates all season long. I would hate to see either team go undefeated and roll through the playoffs. Where's the excitement in that?

The solution? A tie today. I want to see this game go down to the absolute wire-preferably, with a goal-line stand at the end. Maybe even with some controversy, like a bad call or one of those replays where it looks like the guy scored but isn't called in. You know, where one fanbase says "he was obviously in" and the other side says he wasn't even really that close. Something like that, something that can add spice to the eventual Colts-Patriots playoff showdown.

All I'm saying is: look, the Broncos are awful. Don't make me give up on the whole NFL season today.