NFL Musings: NFC North

Green Bay Packers

So the Eagles are the new favorites to win the Super Bowl, eh? Even though they have new guys with unproven chemistry, and guys who are holding out? Even though the Packers are returning basically the same team that won the Super Bowl last year, with the addition of all those guys they lost to injury last season? If you say so.

I still think, especially with the advantage the lockout will give to veteran teams, that the Packers have as good a chance to repeat as a fan could ask for.

Minnesota Vikings

Well, I think the Donovan McNabb trade was a good idea for them. It still doesn't make them scary at all, but they won't be the utter, utter shambles of a team I was expecting back in March. Not that McNabb 2011 is going to be anything like Favre 2009.

2009 isn't coming back, Vikes. I think it's time you made your peace with that.

Detroit Lions

Man, I wish the Lions were in a different division from the Packers (or better yet, different conference) so I could root for them harder. I just love a scrappy underdog! I hate Nick Fairley, because he's a dirty cheater, but what a great draft choice that was for them. I love the idea of drafting to your strengths instead of your weaknesses. I'm not looking forward to Aaron Rodgers going against that D-line twice. On the other hand . . .

Chicago Bears

Jay Cutler also has to face the Lions twice, and with much crappier protection. The Bears are now my pick for Biggest Mess in the division. Their offensive line was already pretty terrible, and they only seem to have made it worse in the offseason. And filling their depth chart with Cowboys cast-offs probably isn't going to help distract their fan base. I know they made the conference championship game last year, but let's just say I'll be real surprised if they make it back there.

Roger Goodell Wants Me

It's a well-acknowledged fact that NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell wants to take over the world.

Professional football is the most popular, profitable sport in the country, but ol' Rog wants to make it more popular. And profitable. That's what playing a game a year in London is about--he wants to build up a trans-Atlantic fanbase. Someday, despite the wild impracticality of it, he wants a franchise over there. The fact that the Bills play some of their home games in Toronto helps build up Canadian enthusiasm for American football. Goodell wants the NFL in Europe; he wants in Mexico; he wants to turn people of all nations and creeds into NFL fans and to turn small percentages of their money into his money.

Again, this is all openly acknowledged and much-discussed in the sports media. What puzzles me is that I don't see mentions of how the NFL is even more aggressively trying to win over a particular segment of Americans: women.

It makes sense to try to turn more women into football fans. We have eyeballs for watching and money for spending. Plus, we're already here--no need to move an entire team across an ocean for us!

This is why NFL.com keeps running those commercials for lady-style football jerseys. This is why he punished Ben Roethlisberger for sexual assault even when the legal system didn't. Most of all, this is why the NFL devotes a month to breast cancer awareness. Pure altruism? Of course not. While money and awareness gets raised for a good cause (and I'm not trying to malign that), women get drawn in by the NFL's dedication to a cause that's important to them, and little girls get drawn in by the pretty pink shoes and gloves (might as well start working on new fans early, right?).

I've been asked if I think the new emphasis on concussion safety is another appeal to women, and I think the answer is yes and no. The new concussion policies are about a lot of things, the first and foremost of which is probably heading off a class-action lawsuit. Someday ex-players who suffer from head-trauma-induced health problems are going to want to sue the NFL, and the league needs to start proving they're being as responsible as possible, in line with recent medical findings. There are other reasons, too: they want to mitigate hostility to the 18-game season. They want to keep people from feeling guilty about watching a sport that can permanently handicap its players. I think the reason that most applies to women is that the league does not want parents to keep their children from playing football. If young athletes get steered away from football (and towards basketball, baseball, or God forbid, soccer) because their mothers fear for their long-term health, that will eventually damage the sport.

I'm not criticizing Roger Goodell and the NFL for trying to win over women. It's smart. I just don't know why it doesn't get more attention when it's so obvious.

Some Picks: NFL Week 6

Chicago (off) over Seattle

No line here yet, since we still don't know if Jay Cutler will be back from the concussion, but a line would have to be really high for me to pick Seattle. One of my personal Football 2010 Picks Rules: pick Seattle at home, pick against them on the road.

Miami (off) over Green Bay

Green Bay also has a quarterback concussion problem. Also . . . they sort of suck.

St. Louis (+8.5) over San Diego

If San Diego can lose to Oakland, they can fail to beat St. Louis by 9.

Baltimore (+2.5) over New England

Serious question: why is New England favored here?

Detroit (+10) over New York Giants

I'm not going to pretend I know how the Giants are going to perform any given week, but I know that Detroit can lose by less than ten. Don't get me wrong; they'll lose. Just maybe by seven or something.

Atlanta (off) over Philadelphia

Vick or Kolb, the Eagles aren't as good as Atlanta.

Pittsburgh (-14) over Cleveland

With their QB back, Pittsburgh will go out of its way to score points. Also, Cleveland is probably starting Colt McCoy? If I were a Browns fan, I'd be horrified. . . . More horrified than usual.

Tampa Bay (+5) over New Orleans

I don't think New Orleans is good, you guys. And Tampa Bay is, at worst, scrappy. Gotta like scrappy.

Kansas City (+4.5) over Houston

This is pretty much a repeat of my last pick, except that I have more evidence that KC is OK and less evidence that Houston is any good. They don't have many strengths, and they can't count on the ones they're supposed to have (e.g. Andre Johnson and Matt Schaub).

New York Jets (-3) over Denver

I went from believing in the Jets to not believing. Then to believing. And after Monday night's game . . . I'd call it ambivalent. Sure, they won, but why didn't they score more during those first three quarters? They can take Denver, though.

Oakland (+6.5) over San Francisco

OK, seriously, why is San Francisco favored? They are 0-5. They are inventing new ways to lose. I refuse to pick the 49ers until after they finally win one. I refuse.

Dallas (+2) over Minnesota

Who can choke this game away harder?

Indianapolis (-3) over Washington

I know the Colts are kind of struggling, but they can pull this out.

Jacksonville (+3) over Tennessee

I told myself I was going to pick the opposite of what should happen for all of the Titans' games . . . but then I thought Dallas would beat them, and I picked Dallas. Never again!

last week's record: 8-6

season to date: 37-35

Some Picks: NFL Week 3

I'm gonna keep plugging away at the ol' picks. I know they're going to get good at some point. One change I will make: no more shots at the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, since they are the 2-0 Tampa Bay Buccaneers. I won't make fun of them anymore. Until they finally start losing.

Kansas City (+2.5) over San Francisco

I really shouldn't be picking the 49ers to go 0-3, because they're better than that. But I'm still not over how well the crowd did at the Chiefs' last home game. Sigh. I wish the spread was bigger, so I could pick the Chiefs without having to believe they would win.

Detroit (+11) over Minnesota

I hope, although I do not believe, that the Lions will win this game. I'm plain old sure they'll keep it closer than 11 points, though.

New England (-14) over Buffalo

It remains a good idea to pick the Bills to lose by two touchdowns.

New Orleans (-4) over Atlanta

I can't dig up a qualm to feel about this one.

New York Giants (-3) over Tennessee

I don't think any of us knows how good either of these teams are. Each has had one dominant win and one embarrassing loss. The Giants are the more stable team (although I think pulling Vince Young last week reflects more on Jeff Fisher than on Vince) and they're at home, so let's assume they'll get it done.

Pittsburgh (-2.5) over Tampa Bay

Here's a matchup of extremely unlikely 2-0 teams. I didn't expect Pittsburgh to beat Atlanta or Tennessee; I didn't expect Tampa to beat Cleveland or Carolina. Even so--before the season, I expected the Steelers to beat the Bucs, and I'm going to stick with it.

Cincinnati (-3) over Carolina

Apparently, the Panthers are just bad. The Bengals aren't as good as they should be, but they're not as bad as Carolina (especially a Carolina starting a rookie QB).

Cleveland (+10.5) over Baltimore

I'd fall right over if the Browns won this game, but the Ravens do not seem to be a team built for blowouts. Also, Joe Flacco: not actually good? Discuss.

Houston (-3) over Dallas

Besides the Colts, I can't think of another team the Texans would want to beat more than the Cowboys. I mean, you'd want to beat the Cowboys if you were the Texans, right? That and Dallas's two abysmal performances outweigh Dallas's terrible desperation to win a game.

Washington (-3.5) over St. Louis

I'm not going to start buying Sam Bradford, Franchise Savior until and unless I absolutely have to. Also, I know the Redskins haven't looked great getting to 1-1, but isn't that spread pretty small?

Philadelphia (-3) over Jacksonville

I'm probably underestimating Jacksonville because I get them confused with Carolina. I really can't keep those teams straight. It's a real problem.

Indianapolis (-5.5) over Denver

Indy is still good; they just lost their first game to a team that cared much more than they did. (And is also good.) Denver is, at best, mediocre.

Oakland (+4) over Arizona

We officially have to put Jason Campbell in the Matt Leinart drawer, don't we? I had thought he had some untapped potential, maybe just needed to build some confidence--but no. The Raiders look to get a little better by starting Gradkowski, and I truly believe the Cardinals are terrible. I am not giving up on the Raiders, at least not this week.

Seattle (+5.5) over San Diego

Here I go again, putting a lot of stock in a really good Week 1 home performance. It's not just that, though--San Diego still has more losses to go to have one of their trademark bad beginnings of the season. I think it's in Norv's contract or something.

New York Jets (+2.5) over Miami

This is another hard one to get a feel for. It's equally easy to imagine the Jets playing sharply and the Jets falling on their faces (because we've seen both happen already this season). Miami, meanwhile, has won both their games--on the road--but not by impressive margins. I think the Jets have higher potential, though.

Chicago (+3) over Green Bay

As a Packer fan, I am super super nervous about this game, and the pick reflects that. My reasons for taking Chicago/points: the Packers, despite their obvious strengths, also have obvious weaknesses (the o-line and the run game), and the Bears have enough game tape to realize that. This new Chicago offense is still riding high, and while I think they'll crash/burn sooner or later, it will probably at least be later than Week 3. Finally, the Packers started last season badly, and I've been worried overall that they'll be shaky for the first several weeks of this season. Even a close win by the Packers will be hard on already frayed football nerves, so I hope this pick is wrong. (Looking at my record, the odds of that are good!)

Last week's record: 6-9-1

Season to date: 13-15-4

Some Picks: NFL Week 2

Week 2's picks: in which I try not to put too much stock in Week 1's results, because it's only one week, but may have a hard time avoiding.

Atlanta (-6.5) over Arizona

The Falcons let me down in Week 1, but at least they have a moderately competent quarterback.

Baltimore (-2.5) over Cincinnati

Maybe (maybe) it was just the Jets' jaw-droppingly awful offense that made the Ravens' D look so good on Monday, but I can't believe it was just the Patriots' D that made the Bengals' offense look so terrible. Yes, Palmer and Ocho put up good fantasy stats last week, but since all those passes and points came in garbage time, the stats are just that: garbage.

Kansas City (+1.5) over Cleveland
I know KC had some lucky things going in their favor last week (weather that was worse for San Diego's offense than theirs, raucous home crowd, a special teams touchdown), but I saw some things I liked. Meanwhile, Cleveland lost to Tampa Bay. If you can't beat Tampa, who can you beat? (Please forget for a moment that Green Bay lost to Tampa last season. Thank you.)

Dallas (-7.5) over Chicago
I certainly don't think Dallas is a Super Bowl team, but if they can clean up even half the mistakes they made against the Redskins, they can beat Chicago. The Bears stink.

Philadephia (-6) over Detroit
Like everyone else, I'd be tempted to pick Detroit . . . if Matthew Stafford were going to play. Since he isn't, the Lions have no offense whatsoever; although Detroit's defense is good, Philadelphia's going to score someway, somehow (read: Michael Vick will run it in at some point). I don't know if that's true for Detroit.

Green Bay (-13) over Buffalo
I can't in good conscience not pick the Packers to beat the Bills by two touchdowns. It's just common sense.

Tennessee (-5) over Pittsburgh

Despite the Steelers' (overtime) win last week, I'm still not buying them--even once they get their QB back. In other news, Tennessee might be really good. (I was going to type "really, really good" but one can only give out so many modifiers for a win over the Raiders.)

Miami (+5.5) over Minnesota

I have to admit, I think Bill Simmons talked me into this one. He's been talking all offseason about Minny having to open against the Saints and then having this "tough matchup" against the Dolphins and very possibly starting 0-2. Rightly or wrongly, I'm buying it.

Carolina (-3.5) over Tampa Bay

Tampa may have already gotten their one win of the season.

Seattle (+3.5) over Denver

I got into a debate at a bar last night over this game; I was arguing that Denver can pull it off at home; she thought The Weasel Pete Carroll would sneak out another win, particularly since Denver is terrible. Imagine my surprise when I looked up my picks this morning and found that I'd taken Seattle. Or maybe I was just taking the points? Yes, I think that's where I was coming from when I made the picks: Denver may well win (I don't like Seattle to win away from home this season), but I like their odds to win by a field goal or less. There you have it: I trust my judgment from the day I made the picks more than from when I got into a debate at a bar.

Oakland (-3.5) over St. Louis

At this point, I can't forsee ever picking the Rams this season. Well, maybe when they play Tampa.

New England (-2.5) over New York Jets

So on the one hand, I don't want to put too much stock into Week 1. On the other hand, I don't want to overthink it. One of these teams is in all likelihood better than the other, and I am picking that team.

San Diego (-7) over Jacksonville

I feel like there are no good options here. San Diego looked plain old bad last week; they have a history of starting the season poorly; and the size of the spread makes me a little nervous. But then Jacksonville is a team I expect to be, during the season overall, worse than San Diego, and I am told they're a bad road team--which has to be exacerbated by travelling that far west. San Diego: the less bad choice.

Washington (+3) over Houston

I am basing this pick on exactly one thing: Houston will have a letdown from their huge win over the Colts last week. I believe that very strongly.

Indianapolis (-5.5) over New York Giants

I'm not at ease over this pick, but if I have to make a decision between Peyton and Eli . . . .

New Orleans (-5.5) over San Francisco

Both Peter King (who I think is OK) and Adam Schefter (who I think is a genius) are picking the 49ers to upset. This surprises me, because . . . really? The Saints' last game was so long ago, I barely even remember it. They've had all that time to prepare for a team that's in total disarray. I can't come up with one believable reason to pick San Francisco. I don't get it, Peter King and Adam Schefter. I just don't get it.

Last week's record: 7-6-3 (Over .500! Yeah! Woo!)

NFL: Week 1

Hilarious:

The Cowboys losing! And it was embarassing too. It wasn't like the Redskins' offense was good--it wasn't--or that their defense was awesome--it wasn't--or even that Tony Romo single-handedly ruined everything--which has its upside, but frankly has happened so often that it's started to get a little sad. No, Dallas's offense as a whole just kept screwing stuff up. The egregious holding call that wiped the game-winning touchdown off the board has gotten the most attention, but that was really just emblematic of the whole game.

Not Hilarious:

The Lions losing. All the media and internet attention has been focused on Calvin Johnson's controversial non-TD catch at the end of the game, and that was sad. (I would really like my moment of celebration back, please.) Even if he had plain old dropped the ball, though, it still would have been depressing for a team that hasn't won on the road in years to lose a game their defense hung on to so doggedly for so long. And the saddest thing of all is losing Matthew Stafford, again, for who knows how long. And with three injuries in his first 17 games, I think it's time to start worrying about his career. I just wish something would go right for the Lions.

Hilarious:

Philip Rivers throwing a hissy at New Arrowhead in the rain. I know this video will be taken down soon, but it's too perfect:

Not Hilarious:

The Triumphant (?) Return of Michael Vick/the Non-Triumphant Debut of Kevin Kolb. Check out this anti-hilarious series of events:

• Despite having a promising young quarterback for whom he ditched Donovan McNabb, Andy Reid starts the game Kolb and Vick frequently, allowing neither one to get into a rhythm.
• Either because of the rhythm thing or because he's just not ready for the big stage, the vaunted Kolb looks like a deer in the headlights, and passes like one too.
• Clay Mathews slams Kolb into the ground face-first. He leaves the game, and it turns out he's concussed. (Note: Clay Mathews is awesome and was just doing his job. It's a just a shame that Kolb's arms weren't free to cushion his face.)
• The odious Michael Vick becomes the unquestioned leader of the team, and does not-totally-awful, setting up what is sure to be an endless and annoying QB debate.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy the Packers won (for the first time in Philadelphia since 1962), but it would have been nice if they'd done it by being the better team instead of the less-bad team.

Hilarious:

The total offensive ineptitude of the massively overhyped Jets. At the end of last season, I kind of liked the Jets. They have a big ol' loudmouth coach, which is a dying breed, and I felt Mark Sanchez redeemed his lousy regular season performance with a solid playoff run. But this summer, it was too much Jets, all the time. So I was pretty satisfied that they couldn't make anything happen in their game last night. (Their defense still looks fairly scary, though.) The only downside is that they got put in their place by the Ravens, who aren't super likable either.

Less Hilarious Than I Would Have Thought:

The decline of Brett Favre. I am a decided Brett Favre un-fan, but the realization that it's going to be a long and painful season for the Vikings and Favre in particular has not brought me the schadenfreude I would have expected. Don't get me wrong; I want the Vikings to lose a lot of games. It's just that Favre is already in a bad way physically, and because of his iron man streak, he's never going to take a week or two off to heal. He's going to play until he literally can't anymore, and I just worry it's all going to end with him not just too injured for football, but too injured for aspects of real life.

And that was Week 1! What did you all find hilarious or not hilarious?

Some Picks: NFL Week 1

I'm going to pick against the spread, because it's more fun. And I'm using Yahoo's picks competition numbers instead of ESPN's, because they get more frequently updated. Home team in italics.

Saints (-5) over Vikings

The Vikings have problems; the Saints don't.

Dolphins (-3) over Bills

Miami should be at least OK, while Buffalo is my pre-season pick for Worst Team in the NFL.

Lions (+6.5) over Bears

Detroit should be better this season. Chicago should be better, but won't be.

Titans (-6.5) over Raiders

At first, I was going with the Oakland, but then I realized I couldn't justify it here in writing. And if I can't make the case ("Jason Campbell" still sounds like an argument for the Raiders improving to mediocrity over the entire season, but doesn't really fly for this particular game.)

Patriots (-4.5) over Bengals

I just don't believe in the Bengals.

Panthers (+6.5) over Giants

This was my trickiest pick. At first glance, Giants by a touchdown over Carolina at home seems like a pretty easy bet. At second glance, you remember that this, the Giants' first opponent at their new stadium, was their last opponent at their old stadium, and the Panthers embarrassed them (though less than they embarrassed themselves). It should follow that the Giants will try not just to beat, but destroy them. Third glance! If the Giants were capable of doling out an important, emotional, meaningful beatdown, why didn't they do it last year against Carolina? I don't think the Giants will necessarily lose, but I'm thinking it might at least be embarrassingly close.

Falcons (-2.5) over Steelers

I am buying the Bill Simmons argument that Atlanta's going to be genuinely good this year, while the Steelers--I'm calling it--are still going to be lost even once Roethelisberger gets back. In related news, watching Roethelisberger in the pre-season finally gave me some more insight into how dog lovers feel about Michael Vick. I can barely stand to look at him.

Browns (+3) over Buccaneers

I don't know why Tampa is even favored here. Yes, Cleveland will be very bad, but Tampa will be very, very bad.

Broncos (+2.5) over Jaguars

The wild card: Bronco third-string quarterback/Jacksonville native Tim Tebow. If I were coaching the Broncos, well, I wouldn't have lobbied to draft Tim Tebow in the first place. But let's ignore that! If I were coaching the Broncos, I'd put Tim Tebow in (even just in specialty packages) early and often, to get the crowd on my side. Because it would totally work! Nobody cares about the Jags, and as we know, lots of people care very much about Tim Tebow.

Colts (-2.5) over Texans

Because it's the Colts playing the Texans. We can pretend it will be different this time, but I think we all know it won't.

Cardinals (-4) over Rams

I'm interested to see how Sam Bradford does, but I don't think he's winning his first start.

Packers (-3) over Eagles

Go Packers! Yeah! Woo!

49ers (-3) over Seahawks

I'll put it this way: I have three fantasy teams, one of them in an IDP league, and not one player for Seattle. In my IDP league, there is only one Seattle player owned, DT Craig Terrill.

Redskins (+3.5) over Cowboys

Go Mike Shanahan! Yeah! Woo!

Ravens (+2.5) over Jets

This is part wishful thinking, admittedly, but I also think the Ravens are going to be better than the Jets this year.

Chargers (-4.5) over Chiefs

It may sound crazy, but gee, I just think San Diego will be able to put up a lot of points at Kansas City.

Linktastic!

Is it the world's most incisive NFL pre-season analysis? Perhaps. It's The Onion's NFL Preview, and it's hilarious. I especially recommend the team-by-team guide.

I really wish George Lucas had let Ole Miss use Admiral Ackbar as their new Rebel mascot. That would have been delightful. Also, do you think Ackbar would have let them lose to Jacksonville State? Of course not.

Bromance: The Talk Show is coming soon to a low-rent cable station near you! I just worry that filming a show together will put a strain on their relationship.

Objectification!

As a self-proclaimed football gal, I feel I should comment on this MSN piece entitled NFL Eye Candy. (Link via Go Fug Yourself.) It's my duty.

The thing about it is that I can sum it up in these four words: lots of white quarterbacks. There are a couple obvious reasons for this--first, QBs are the most famous and visible members of teams. Secondly, I believe the writer of the article is white. People tend to be more attracted to the familiar, so that's white QBs on both counts. I still wish she'd corrected for this a little more, though. Sure, you have to include Tom Brady, because you have eyes in your head. But Tony Romo? Peyton Manning? I love Peyton as much as the next person, but foxy he is not. It doesn't get silly until the end, when she tacks on some old-school players, and those players are six white quarterbacks and Jerry Rice. C'mon.

Other than that, I guess it just comes to down to personal taste. However! She did leave off my personal favorite eye candy NFL guy, perhaps because he's not a player. But Steelers head coach Mike Tomlin?

Nice.

Linktastic!

A writer at the Washington Post just rips Albert Haynesworth a new one. Even better, she contrasts Haynesworth's wussy prima-doninity with Mike Shanahan's total awesomeness. Did you know that once, Mike Shanahan was so determined to keep playing a football game that he almost died? Like, was given his last rites almost-died. This article is fantastic.

Tom Brady hates the Jets. I think that's great. Fans hate their rival teams, why shouldn't players? In this day and age, I find it downright heartwarming.

Video: A couple SI writers who are not very comfortable on camera discuss how good Oklahoma will be this year. Uncomfortable guy on the left, Andy Staples, is the only sportswriter I've seen who expresses my opinion: that it doesn't make sense that Oklahoma (or texas, for that matter) is ranked so high in the preseason polls.

Bromance UPDATE

Despite mutually underwhelming performances in a (by-definition underwhelming) preseason game, the Chad & T.O. love train keeps chugging along!

The two of them explaining their "Batman" and "Robin" relationship to Andrea Kraemer last night really cracked me up.

I put together a little twitter list of just the two of them. Much more Batman-and-Robin-ing there, I assure you. Here's a good one from this morning:

I can't help it, you guys--I find this whole thing hilarious and even kind of endearing. I started to find "Ochocinco" amusing in spite of myself last season, and adding T.O. to the mix just makes him even more exuberant. I'm excited to watch Bengals games this year, which means their evil plan is working.

In conclusion, coordinating segways:

It's Come to This: a Brett Favre Post

Brett Favre might retire, again, for realsies this time, as was first reported this morning by Adam Shefter. (Who, by the way, direct messaged me on Twitter last night! I replied to a tweet he made, and then he responded in direct message form, which I have set to get sent to my phone, so it was practically like Adam Shefter texted me! I was super excited about it last night but didn't know how I should brag. If I had tweeted "OMG @Adam_Shefter DMed me!" he might have seen it and been like, "Nerd!" If I'd put up a status update on Facebook, almost all of my friends would have been like, "Who the crap is Adam Shefter? What a nerd!" And if I'd just gone into the other room to tell my husband, he would have been all, "OK, but why did you wake me up? I've got to work in the morning." And he probably wouldn't have called me a nerd, but it might be implied.)

Do I believe Favre is actually going to pull the trigger this time? No. Does anyone?

It's possible that his ankle really is bad and he really doesn't think he can play another season. It is, however, far more possible that he cannot stand that nobody's been reporting on him all off season and that this is yet another narcissistic ploy to get attention. It's totally working, too. Sports Illustrated is running all this stuff about his greatest games and his amazing stats (my favorite: all time high interceptions), ESPN is (apparently, I don't have cable) doing All-Favre Coverage, and hey, even I am writing this Brett Favre post.

Another factor is the "it's just a ploy" theory: we already know the guy really hates training camp. Maybe this season he doesn't want to do pre-season games either. That's why I'm not buying that he's done until and unless I see somebody else start for the Vikings against the Saints on September 9th. (Some people think that he might stage a "heroic" mid-season comeback if things look favorable in November or so, but I don't think there's any way he's giving up the iron man streak until he's done for good.)

Now, if he does finally go ahead and quit, Vikings fans should be quite unhappy that ol' Brett didn't figure this out at the beginning of the off season, when there were numerous decent-to-middling quarterbacks available. But if Favre ditches them now, they're stuck with Tarvaris & Sage. Which, incidentally, sounds like a cocktail my cocktail-inventing friend would invent. I'm no mixologist, but obviously, it would be purple and have a sage leaf stuck in it; ideally, it would be served in some sort of drinking horn; and as for taste, I'd go with bitter, bitter defeat.

In conclusion: I think he'll play this season. He won't show up in Minnesota until mid-August (likely after the Vikings have upped his salary a bit). My mind might change a little bit if he gives a press conference instead of just texting teammates and encouraging rumors to swirl, but it's not like he hasn't given retirement press conferences before. I feel a little bad for the Vikings for having to deal with the uncertainty, but on the other hand, that's what they get for signing him in the first place.

That's Why Their Matching Bracelets Say Chad and T.O.!

Yesterday's big football news was undoubtedly Terrell Owens' getting out of the unemployment line and signing with the Bengals. That's right! Chad "Ochocinco" Ochocinco and Terrell "Locker Room Cancer" Owens will be teammates! According to Chad's tweets (yes, I follow "Ochocinco" on Twitter; it's a guilty pleasure), this development is very much in this vein:

I'm setting the over/under at five months before it turns into your standard-issue soap opera, amnesia optional.

(I don't know who's going to catch more passes, but I do know that Chad is funnier.)

Thoughts On: the Denver Broncos

I still can't wrap my head around a team having a quarterbacking corps of Kyle Orton, Tim Tebow, and Brady Quinn. Yes, that's right; Josh McDaniels, purported offensive genius, has at his disposal:

1. A guy most notable for his neckbeard/comb-forward combo

I know I shouldn't rag on the guy for his looks, but . . . dang.

2. A guy who's just there to run the Wildcat and sell jerseys to people who confuse him with Jesus

I bet Gary Danielson already has four of these.

3. A guy who lost his starting position on to Derek "Two Completions" Anderson.

Although things could be worse . . .

Those guys, Josh McDaniels? I mean, really? Really?

An Ode to Cris Collinsworth

O Cris Collinsworth,
Cris Collinsworth
As your hair reaches up to Heaven
And your voice rumbles down toward Hell
You show me things about offensive lines
I could not alone be able to tell.

Cris Collinsworth, you exemplify
What it means to be a color guy
Illuminating what otherwise
Would completely fail to catch my eyes.

O Cris Collinsworth,
Cris Collinsworth
When you broadcast games on Sunday nights
My heart you most sincerely gladden
I am not able to thank you enough
For being much less annoying than Madden.