SB Nation User Blog: AZDynamics

What's in a Name?

AZDynamics — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:49:55 -0000

I was sitting with Butch, a Seahawks fan and good friend, yesterday in the local Burger King, mainly because there was no Carl's Jr. nearby. In front of him was his Double Whopper with Cheese, while I was enjoying a simple Whopper . . . never did like cheese on my hamburger.

Looking at Butch's sandwich, I remarked out of the blue, "They're trying to attach the moniker 'Royal with Cheese' to the Broncos' number two receiver."

"Nnnawww!!" Butch exclaimed in feigned shock, his eyes growing wide and jaw dropping. "When did this happen?"

"They've been trying that for a while" I replied, humoring him.

Butch opened his sandwich and pulled on the cheese, watching it stretch into little strands and stick to his fingers. "I'd say that would be a better name for the receiver you unloaded on us," referring to Colbert, of course.

It's amazing to me, this nickname business. Why do they want to name Eddie Royal after meal entrees? The other day, someone suggested "Eddie 'Spaghetti' Royal."

And then we have others calling him "Casino." Wow, does he look like a gambling hall to you?

Well, I'll have to admit, I have been spamming "Fast Eddie" all over the place.

But today on one of the message boards, a poster said now that we have "Casino" Eddie Royal and Brandon "Slot Machine" Stokley, we are going to have to figure out some "casino" names for Cutler, Marshall, and Scheffler.

Okay, it's all good. You can call Eddie a hamburger and Cutler "Liver and Onions," if you want. I don't care.

What I want to call them is Super Bowl Champions. That's when I'll be happy.

Are the Chargers Better Than the Broncos?

AZDynamics — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 06:16:21 -0000

This was the title of a Vic Lombardi video at CBS4 in Denver.

"Were the Broncos lucky?" Lombardi asked rhetorically. "Of course. So what?"

Okay, the Broncos were lucky. So were the Chargers. The Chargers simply did not take advantage of it, and the Broncos did. That is the difference between the two teams.

Ed Hochuli has been treated as if he cost the Chargers the game. He did not cost them the game. They were about to receive an unearned gift, but it didn't work out for them. With the Broncos on the Chargers' one-yard line with a second and goal, and Daniel Graham standing alone in the corner of the end zone, the Chargers were about to lose the game, anyway.

But then, the Chargers received a gift anyway: Denver was moved back to the ten-yard line and a down taken away. Up to this point, the Chargers had done absolutely nothing to earn either possession of the ball or taking away field position and a down from the Broncos.

The Chargers had not yet lost the game. All they had to do was to keep the Broncos out of the end zone with a fourth and goal at the four-yard line. They couldn't. So then all they had to do was to prevent a two-point conversion with their vaunted defense. They couldn't.

Two plays. All the Chargers had to do was to stop the Broncos on one of them. Just one.

Hochuli had nothing to do with all that. Before the Chargers fans come down on the referee, they had better consider the multiple failures of their fallen heroes, which really caused their defeat.

But they won't. It figures.