SB Nation User Blog: Sharpe as a Tack

Denver Broncos 2010 Draft watch: Alabama vs. Florida

Sharpe as a Tack — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 21:17:07 -0000

Hey everyone!

I'm loving the Broncos' resurgence on defense, loving the Broncos' return to the running game, loving the return of Eddie Royal, Peyton Hillis, Spencer Larsen, and several others. I am feeling good right now, as a Bronco fan.

But I'm also a guy who loves the NFL draft. I was a big supporter of Moreno before the 2009 draft, and was ecstatic that we picked him. I love watching rookies develop, and this year it has been a treat to watch Moreno, McBath, and Bruton, with Ayers improving every week. I continue to hope for more from Smith, Quinn, and McKinley. That being said, I noticed that with this past Saturday's SEC Championship there were more than a few notable players on the field who might be available for the Broncos to target come draft day 2010. Given the high caliber of on-field talent, I thought that this would be the closest to an NFL-like situation. I watched the game once live and twice recorded (once for offense and once for defense). The players will be ordered based on how much I would like to see them in a Bronco uniform, compared to the rest of the players on the field. For what it's worth, here are my thoughts:

(Note: Ted Bartlett has already covered this in his most recent Shallow Thoughts. If you want another, broader analysis, look there. I had already started this post, so I might as well finish it, eh?)

1a. Rolando McClain, ILB -- Alabama

He is a junior, so he might not declare, but this game to me was the definitive answer in the McClain vs. Spikes argument. McClain showed excellent speed getting to the edge of rushing plays, was not baited by play action or option, and flashed superb acceleration. He is 6-4 and around 250 lbs, but he moves fluidly and was around the ball constantly. I saw him audible to the rest of the defense multiple times, displaying his leadership. His tackling is very very good, but what impressed me the most regarding his fit for the Broncos was his ability to effectively blitz the A-B gaps. Only once (1st quarter) was he held up on these blitzes; all other times he created pressure and/or collapsed the pocket.
If you want a capsule of McClain, watch a play at 4:06 in the 1st quarter. The play is designed as a pass, but Tebow sees an opening in the left side of the line and sprints through. McClain was watching Tebow's eyes and moving to his left (away from the run play). When Tebow tucked, McClain instantly changed direction and showed amazing quickness to catch up with Tebow, then incredible strength and tackling technique to bring him down for only a one-yard gain, despite a stiff arm. Anyone who knows Tim Tebow knows this is no small feat.
He is a playmaker, a leader, and a physical specimen. If Chicago gives us a good pick, we ought to think very strongly about taking this guy here. Think of him as being as hard of a hitter as Maualuga but as sure of a tackler as Laurinitis, all with great coverage abilities. This guy should be the eventual replacement for Andra Davis. In addition, he has the versatility to play at LOLB if we need him to, and would be superb in coverage against TEs.

1b. Joe Haden, CB -- Florida

Another junior who may not declare, but I suspect he will. Last year's draft made it clear that McDaniels places an emphasis on a superb secondary that doesn't give up the big plays. That was exactly what Joe Haden did vs. Alabama. In fact, he reminded me an awful lot of Champ. He played RCB, was often in on run support (stopped Ingram short twice in the 1st quarter alone), and was rarely thrown to at all. The few times he was thrown to, he broke up the pass. Julio Jones was usually opposite him, and all of his passing yards came against other CBs. Haden quite literally shut down his side of the field.
I hear you now: "Why do we need another CB? We've already got Champ, Goodman is good, plus there's the Phonz, who is the equivalent of a 1st-rounder?" In short: Champ is declining (but still great), Goodman is a stop-gap, and the Phonz hasn't quite caught up to the NFL yet. If Haden is available at our pick, we should look very very seriously at taking him.
What if both Haden and McClain are available? Ugh. That's tough. If it were me, I would get Haden. Both seem like can't-miss prospects, but Haden seems to be just a bit more of a guy you would regret passing on. Still, ILB seems like a more pressing need -- I can't shake the feeling that we bottled lightning in 2009 with our LBs, and I'm not betting on a repeat. That being said, we can find serviceable fill-ins at ILB easier than we can with CB.

2. Terrance Cody, NT -- Alabama

Emmitt did a great piece on Cody earlier in the season HERE. In it, he essentially declared Cody not first-round material and stated that the Broncos should not draft him unless the value was right -- and even then we might have more pressing needs elsewhere. The economics of draft day aside, I will have to respectfully (and cautiously) disagree. Cody is still a massive man, but he looks to be much less belly than before. He also has more agility than he is usually credited with, getting past the Pouncey twins on two occasions to cause trouble for Tebow in the backfield. He also lined up as a blocker on offense in a goal-line situation for the Tide, resulting in an Ingram TD. Finally, he has some special teams prowess, as he displayed vs. Tennessee earlier in the season. The most telling part about the Tide/Gators game was the lack of interior runs. Much like Haden, Cody shut down his assigned area of the field.
Most of his concerns are regarding motivation and conditioning. I think it's entirely probable that the conditioning part can be taught at the NFL level. Especially as it regards the Broncos' current situation at NT, Cody can be part of a solid rotation of space-pluggers and two-gap players with Fields and Marcus Thomas. That being said, it will be important to get some solid pass-rushing ability at defensive guard either in free agency or the draft. I'm definitely not in favor of getting him with a high- or mid-first-rounder, but he might be a good pickup in a trade down scenario.

3. Brandon Spikes, ILB -- Florida

I loved this guy in 2008, and I would have been thrilled to pick him up then. In 2009, I was initially excited, but kept hearing more and more buzz on McClain. Then, I watched a few games and was impressed but not wowed. When I watched this game, I was very underwhelmed. Spikes was not a presence at all for the duration of the game. He was blocked effectively several times, once in particular on a pulling run play which allowed the RB (Richardson) to get 8 extra yards instead of a loss. On a screen pass that went for big yardage, his lack of top-end speed was displayed while chasing the WR. He blitzed mostly from the edge, and never really got serious pressure
That being said, this guy is an extremely solid ILB who will be a good starter for nearly any team. He is a quarterback of defenses, and his intangibles are impossible to miss. What he might lack in athletic talent, he makes up for in leadership. Still, I think that the Broncos are a better fit for McClain due to our tendency for delayed ILB blitzes and our necessity to have a superb ILB covering TEs in our 5-2 look. A trade down into the late first round would be a great place to cover our need at ILB and not break the (draft pick) bank doing so.

4. Mike Johnson, LG -- Alabama

Mike Johnson had some great moments and some cringe-inducing moments. The latter was on disply most often when he was called on to block in the second level. Twice, he tried to cut block and ended up becoming just a speed bump for the running back. He was effective on pulling run blocks, and showed enough athletic ability to encourage hope for great improvement there. The most significant feature of his game, however, was his consistency. Apart from the aforementioned gaffes, he was habitually solid in both run and pass protection. He displayed some really fantastic strength, and always kept with the play until its conclusion.
Purely on talent and potential, I would rather have Mike Iupati (Idaho), but I am strongly of the opinion that a guard should only be taken in a BPA scenario, and we are not likely to be in territory where a guard is the best player on the board. Asamoah (Illinois) is usually ranked above Johnson by most draft gurus, but honestly I haven't watched him play enough to give a competent opinion. What I like about Johnson is that he is projected as a 2nd/3rd round fringe pick, which means we could probably get him without having to reach much or sacrifice other areas of need. At 6-6 and 305lbs, he is a monster of a guard who nfldraftscout.com describes as a "cerebral" blocker. Sound like a good fit?

5. Riley Cooper, WR -- Florida

This kid is an extremely intriguing talent. 6-3 and 215lbs, he is built like our very own Beast and has the strength to match. Like Ted pointed out in his ST&NO, this young man can manhandle physical corners in bump-and-run coverage, and has emerged as the most dangerous receiving threat Tim Tebow has. He spent the first part of his Florida career on special teams (gunner), so he fits us well there. He runs some very excellent routes, and has great hands. Several times, he came down with difficult catches in tight coverage. Also, he seemed to not be fazed at all by coverage from Arenas.
In fact, if for some reason Brandon Marshall is not in our long-term goals, this kid strikes me as a very apt replacement for the Beast. Built the same, with similar skill set, great as a blocker, better speed, and a better route runner. With a 3rd-4th round grade, we could get great value for him. The only question will be Elway's dilemma: baseball or football?

6. Javier Arenas, CB -- Alabama

Many of us like Arenas, and mostly for his return/special teams ability. I must admit, I have been one of them. Now, after watching him get beaten and overmatched by a WR who is hardly on most people's radar entering the draft (see above), I am starting to seriously second-guess that. A returner is always a strange creature to draft: one hardly wants to draft highly a good returner who can't do anything else (i.e., Cribbs), but when the guy has great skills elsewhere you want him to stick to one or the other (i.e., Royal). Arenas is likely to be drafted highly, and that is precisely why I don't want him. I don't value his skills as a CB highly enough to draft him in that territory, and I don't think we need a return man that desperately to reach for him. On a side note, can you imagine the cacophony that would ensue if McDaniels drafts two "undersized" CBs back-to-back? For those who don't know, Arenas is a generous 5'9".
Arenas could be a good nickel CB, but I don't see him as a #2, especially in our division (with tall, strong WRs in SD and KC). His return ability is indeed special, though, and would be welcome on the Broncos -- thereby freeing up Royal to move to the slot position. What I liked about him in this game was his absolutely obvious intensity and discipline: after every return, every tackle, he immediately popped up off the ground and ran off the field. This kid is the definition of "gamer" -- or "baller", if you prefer.

7. Chas Henry, P -- Florida

He's a junior, and you rarely see a junior punter in the NFL draft. Still, this kid absolutely blew me away during the game. Arenas got 8 yards on one returnable punt -- and he is the 2nd-leading punt returner in NCAA history. Henry's stats jump off the page: 42.8 yards per punt average, 12 punts inside the opponent's 20, 6 punts of 50+ yards, and -- here's the kicker -- 21 punt return yards the entire season. His hang time was phenomenal and the distance was just as exceptional on every punt. Accuracy isn't an issue, either. He is currently a finalist for the Ray Guy Award for the best punter in the nation.
Mitch Berger is showing definite improvement, but we all know he's not the long-term answer. Wouldn't it be nice to have one guy every year who we could count on to put us in spectacular field position on defense? Todd Sauerbraun was our guy year in and year out; Chas could be the same for us in 2011.

Well, that's the long and... well, the long of it. I like all these guys in a Broncos uniform, and the all fit a need at one area or another. It will be interesting to see what the front office will do; personally, I would like to see them in Orange and Blue. Now I must leave before I start rhyming any more.

Head over to Bolts from the Blue

Sharpe as a Tack — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:45:04 -0000

I have begun a Broncos-Chargers pre-game discussion post HERE.

Head on over there if you think you have something meaningful to contribute. I want to clarify that only if you have something meaningful should you join in. I absolutely do not want the Bronco fanbase to get a bad name, and want MHR to be a part of that even less. If they try to bait you, ignore it. If you snipe back, I'll call you out. This is a rivalry game, and if we're going into their house (on the web, that is), we need to be civil. We'd expect the same from them.

I know that I'm not the most qualified person for the job, so I would like some help. Who wants to represent Mile High Report?

Ask a Bronco fan!

Sharpe as a Tack — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:38:41 -0000

I'm not the most qualified person to answer questions, but I think I am fairly competent. And, since no one else has stepped up, I thought I would jump in and take initiative.

One note quickly: I hate bickering. Despise it, refuse to engage in it. If you bait me, I'll just ignore you. I ask any fellow Bronco fans who join in to do the same. I can occasionally get snarky, but it's always in good humor. If I cross a line, call me out and I'll do my best to be objective and apologize if necessary.

So...

Let's begin! What do you want to know?

Head-hunts, witch-hunts, and sacrificial goats

Sharpe as a Tack — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:28:32 -0000

As always, this is just my opinion.

[Shockingly] I'll keep this one relatively short. We're all looking for someone to blame after the loss to the Ravens. Personally, I'm trying very hard (and so far succeeding) to stay relatively cool. Of course, I was doing the same thing during the 6-0 stretch. I'm just not a fan of a roller-coaster ride of emotion. Sure, I don't get to guzzle the heady mead of success; neither do I wallow in the muck of defeat. That's just me, I won't hope that you can be like me, but I like it.

What I saw was very very simple after the Baltimore game: we got beat in the trenches, and we were playing a top-flight QB. Everything else is incidental to these two facts. If Mitch Berger gets better and we continue to lose the line battle, then we still lose. If the refs call holding on the LT and the QB is still slippery as an eel and cool as a cucumber, then we still lose. That being said, here's my wish list for the Broncos:

1. Fix the inside of the O-line. As McGeorge has keenly observed, Hamilton is a liability now. The offensive line functions as a unit, and if one link breaks then the others have to accomodate for it. This lowers their play as well. Maybe Olson isn't ready right now to step in, but something needs to be done. I'll leave that to our coach to figure out.

(caveat) It's unlikely we'll see a front line like Baltimore's again. That front is monstrous. If there is a blueprint to beating us, it starts with two massive DTs.

2. Fix the ST coverage. Sproles was one thing, but Webb? Two games in a row now -- this is unacceptable, and a harbinger of doom if left unchecked. We absolutely CANNOT give up a ST score in every game. This crushes our spirit, rejuvenates the other team, and indicates a failure of monumental proportions (for some players, tackling a guy on ST is their only job). Seifert, I'm looking at you.

3. Pray like h-e-double-toothpicks when facing guys like Roethlisberger and Flacco (incidentally, I would put Favre and McNabb in this category too). Pressure hardly fazes these guys. Others may have better measurable tools, but these guys are fiends to get on the ground and when they do, just pop right back up and throw again. I'm seeing more and more how football is a game of rhythm and timing, and these guys are near-impossible to get off of their rhythm and timing.

And that's it. I honestly think those are the only areas we got "exposed" this week. The O-line performance is especially troubling, since that is supposedly our best feature and is a large part of Orton's success this year. Speaking of Orton, time to dispel some quick myths (IMO):

A. Orton and his downfield ability (alternatively, McDaniels and his playcalling). I don't even consider the "noodle-armed" argument worth acknowledging, so I'll pass by it entirely. When one has 2.1 seconds to let a play develop, one absolutely cannot throw downfield. WRs absolutely cannot get separation under those conditions, either. And no, I really don't think you want to "just give it a try" or "toss it up to #15 and see what happens". Those kind of high-risk-high-reward plays are desperation and confidence-killers. If I had a beef here, it would be to find a way to make the passes in the flat and/or bubble screens work despite the pressure. As it stood on Sunday, the Ravens had the best of all possible worlds: intense pressure, removed deep ball, and shut-down outlets.

B: The punting. Honestly, I'm baffled by why this has been such an issue. Perhaps because he's new? Maybe that's why we should give him time to get back in a NFL-ready groove. Besides: do you really think that field position (while important) is going to single-handedly win or lose us games?

Now, I'll look forward to the Pittsburgh game in light of the above. And give up any hope of brevity.

Roethlisberger is likely to elude us and make plays just like Flacco did. He has a better WR corps but a far worse O-line. How we answer his skill set will be VERY telling about whether or not we have fatal flaws.
We shut down Ray Rice. That is saying a ton. I don't really count the TD in the 4th because the D was left hanging out to dry by the O-line and was gassed. Now, Mendenhall (Illini fan though I am) doesn't scare me, and nor does the Steelers run-blocking. If we get gashed here, it will either be because a) we shifted focus and dared him to beat us, or b) we have a fatal flaw here. Time will tell.
If we get more big returns against the Steelers, this is a seriously serious issue. They have been bottom-third in the return game all season. If we give up another TD or several big gains, we have a gaping hole.
The Steelers defensive front brings pressure from the second level, not in the trenches. Their DTs are not nearly as imposing as Baltimore's. I look for a much improved game by our O-line, which will lead to a much improved game by Orton and Co.
Another good point by McGeorge: what's up with getting three straight games against teams rested off of a bye? Since Pittsburgh has been a team on the upswing prior, I don't think this will be as significant as it was vs. Baltimore. Still, we are missing a starting tackle... and counting. Injuries could start to pile up during this game, and that could spell serious trouble for us down the line.
We still own the 4th quarter. In the first several games of the season, the Steelers made a living giving up in the 4th quarter. That has waned of late, but it won't be over until it's over.
Never underestimate the intangible effect of Ed Reed or Brian Dawkins. Both of those guys are firecrackers who make everyone else around them play better. Troy Polamalu might seem to be of that same variety, but he's more of a skill player. He makes everyone else around him play better because he plays his job so well, not because of his emotional intensity. The former is a guy we can beat with mismatches (i.e., Scheffler across the middle); the latter is a whole different animal. Now, we have the advantage back.
I like where we're at. We lost to a good team -- a very good team, and it wasn't half the "beatdown" or "rout" that some would have us believe. After this game, we will know a lot more with a lot more certainty about our Broncos.
GO ORANGE AND BLUE!

But that's just my opinion. Except for that last bit. That's just good gravy.

Tim Tebow and the Wildhorse

Sharpe as a Tack — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:17:45 -0000

This one isn't even my opinion, it's just a random thought.

In light of the spate of recent posts about the potential of the Wildhorse formation, I just wanted to throw out a suggestion:

What about Tim Tebow in 2010?

Who the Broncos will pick in the 2010 draft is anyone's guess, mostly because we haven't figured out yet where Chicago will let us pick. Also, we don't know who will go out and what the supply and demand will be like. One thing we do know: Tim Tebow will be entering the draft next year, and it is highly likely that he will be available for our 1st-rounder, possibly even for our 2nd-rounder.

So: would Tim be a great fit for us? As far as character goes, absolutely. The guy is a Boy Scout off the field, a fierce competitor on the field, and refuses to ever quit. Ever. Besides, he lives and breathes for his team, and that is without a doubt the hallmark of a McDaniels offense. What about his talent? Unquestionably, he is one of the top 5 college football players ever. He runs like a fullback, is fearless, and can sling it around when necessary. His pocket mechanics leave something to be desired, but who better to teach him than McDaniels? If he can turn a noodle-armed game manager into a Pro Bowl-caliber player, he can surely do wonders for Tebow. Finally, Tebow is very versatile (another McD trademark): run, pass, catch, and all with the fire of Brian Dawkins.

But what about Orton, Simms, or Brandstater? That's why Tebow is perfect for the Broncos. He'll have the best O-line in the NFL blocking for him, he'll have a wildly creative coach scheming for him, and he'll enter a team with no uncertainty at QB, so he can maximize his impact without causing a locker-room controversy. He can sit on the bench for a few years and learn the game while contributing on a situational basis. Specifically, the Wildhorse seems perfect for him.

Several articles have been done here about the Wildhorse, like The Dude's, Flunkie's, and Vortex7's. Check them out for more info on exactly what the formation is and how it's different from the Wildcat. The most significant difference, in brief, is that when you split the QB out wide (with the RB under center), it makes defenses respect the formation much more if your QB is a genuine threat to catch/run the ball either on a route or from a motion to under center. Also, it makes for a much more effective play if your QB/WR can take a hit in the middle of the field once he does catch the ball. Tim Tebow: check, check, and check. A quick note: some people still think that the single-wing formation (Wildhorse, Wildcat, and their siblings) is a fad in the NFL, quickly going the way of the dinosaur. Not so. Granted, it is unlikely to ever become the default offensive formation for even one team, let alone the league. Still, offensive coordinators are getting more and more creative, and with the success teams like Miami have had with it, coupled with the continued prominence of the spread offense and dual-threat QBs coming out of college, the single-wing will not disappear.

Finally, some of you might shake your head and think it is unwise to "waste" a high pick on a gadget player who will get payed good money to sit on the bench the majority of the time. I can respect this, but consider: while we certainly have some areas for improvement in the draft next year, they are either not glaring holes (D-line, ILB) or are unwise for high picks (interior O-line). So we're really not going to be letting an area of desperate need slide in order to get a high-profile player. Also, consider the effect frequent (and highly effective) use of the Wildhorse would have with Tebow: now, a defensive coordinator must spend time each week planning for it, thus decreasing time on other gameplans. In addition, it always causes defenders to stop and think, decreasing their reaction time. Lastly, it has the potential for monster output: look at NE vs. MIA in 2008.

So, in conclusion: Having Tebow run the Wildhorse for Denver on a semi-consistent basis in 2010 and beyond gives us big-play potential, improves the likelihood of success for our entire team performance, allows us to groom and/or train him at our leisure, provides us with a wonderful locker-room presence, and hedges our bets in case Orton regresses or Brandstater does not pan out.

I'm usually not one of "those guys" who posts things like this. Still, my first thought when I saw the Wildhorse vs. NE was "That's great, but wouldn't it be nice if we had a guy like Tebow running it," and the more I thought about it the better it sounded.

Just throwing it out there!

The Broncos on Football Outsiders

Sharpe as a Tack — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:28:35 -0000

As always, this is just my opinion.

Well, we've had 5 weeks now to simply enjoy the feeling of winning! It tastes so sweet, I simply love watching the Broncos win. And so far, it feels like our defense has simply been phenomenal over the course of a game and the best ever in the history of the NFL during the second half/4th quarter. Conversely, it seems that our offense has shown weekly improvement and most especially this past week, with the removal of "The Glove", the sky seems to be the limit for what we can do.

D--n it feels good to be a Bronco fan!

But, I like to stay grounded. Like a person who has had bad experiences dating/in marriage, I'm a little gun-shy. I always wait for the other shoe to drop, and like to hedge my bets so I don't get let down too hard. Besides, the memory of Kansas City Week 4 last year is still awfully raw. But over and above all this, I simply don't trust my eyes. I know some here do, and view statistics as being able to magically "prove anything". This statement is blatant hyperbole, but it is unclear exactly what it means. Personally, I know that with my affinity for Fantasy Football and my bias toward the Broncos (to say nothing of my emotional involvement with the offseason storylines) makes me a wickedly unreliable arbiter of fact and truth.

So, I look to others. And the best I have found so far has been the guys at Football Outsiders. They compile an ungodly amount of stats from every season, break down EVERY SINGLE PLAY from EVERY SINGLE TEAM, and then create a statistical web that uses proprietary formulae in order to better account for the complexities of the NFL game. The depth of their research truly is astounding, but it can be overwhelming for those who are not of a statistical bent.

For a brief rundown, check out their "Pregame Show", which is basically a type of 95 Theses that distills years of research into a few easily digestible patterns. It will also be useful to check out their explanation of their major formulae, including their flagship: Defense-adjusted Value Over Average, or DVOA. One final note: it's vital to remember that these statistics are not "pure" -- i.e., they are not raw data like yards or number of plays. They are "tweaked" -- allowances have been made for the quality of the opponents, league average in a given situation, increased importance to red zone or third down, etc. This carries with it some disadvantages, the most pressing being suspicion of manipulation. Yet, given a neutral party that objection comes up pretty hollow. I find that their way of looking at 3rd down efficiency is far superior than the rest of the MSM (i.e., conversion percentage).

So, I've pimped them long enough. What do they have to say about the Broncos' strengths and weaknesses?

Areas of strength: (defined as a top-10 finish, ranked from highest to lowest)

Defending #2 WRs (1st)

Pressuring the quarterback (2nd)

Run defense (3rd)

Offensive line -- Running up the gut (3rd)

Offensive line -- Running right end (4th)

Pass defense (4th)

Overall defense (4th)

Defensive line -- stopping runs of 10+ yards (5th)

Defensive line -- stopping runs to the outside, left (5th)

Overall run blocking (5th)

Defending #3 WRs (6th)

Overall team efficiency (7th)

Pass offense (7th)

Defensive line -- stopping runs up the gut (8th)

Overall pass blocking (10th)

Defending TEs (10th)

Areas for improvement: (defined as between top-10 and bottom-10, ranked least to most need)

Overall offense (11th)

Defensive line -- Overall rush yards allowed (11th)

Offensive line -- Runs to left end (11th)

Offensive line -- Runs to right end (11th)

Rushing offense (12th)

Offensive line -- Running plays of 10+ yards (16th)

Defensive line -- Stopping runs to the left end (18th)

RBs catching passes (19th)

Areas of Weakness: (defined as bottom-10, ranked from least to most profound)

Defensive line -- Stopping runs to the outside, right (24th)

Defensive line -- Run stuffing for loss or no gain (24th)

Defensive line -- Short-yardage and goal-line situations (25th)

Offensive line -- Short-yardage and goal-line situations (25th)

Defending #1 WRs (27th)

Offensive line -- Run stuffs for loss or no gain allowed (29th)

Special Teams (29th)

Defensive line -- Stopping runs to the right end (31st)

Offensive line -- Runs to left tackle (31st)

Alright! Everyone's eyes glazed over? In that case, I'll just offer some (semi-)quick thoughts:

It is incredibly heartening to see how many are listed in the Strengths column, and by comparison how few are areas of deficiency.
That being said, our special teams (returning) truly is atrocious. Thank goodness for Prater's leg and his 9 touchbacks (tied for 2nd in the league)
No surprises here: we struggle in short-yardage situations on both sides of the ball.
It appears that the right side of our D-line (left side of the offense) is particularly vulnerable to running plays. Let's see: that would be primarily Doom/Ayers/Moss, plus also Peterson/Holliday, with a little dash of Williams/Woodyard. It will be neat to see Ayers' development as a linebacker on that side, since we need to shore up our running defense there.
No surprise again on needing to stop RBs out of the backfield. I watched Sammy Morris last week and was fervently praying "Not this guy! Not again!" We've got to get that fixed before we meet a guy like Westbrook.
Our rushing offense is a grind-it-out, between the tackles style. Not sure that I particularly prefer a guy like Chris Johnson who is always a home-run threat, but who gets shut down vs. superior defenses. Give me Kno-Mo any day.
There are some on this site who attribute the success of the Broncos entirely (or nearly so) to the defense. Here's a sampling of quotes:

The offense is not the reason for this team’s success – in fact, I give it very, very little credit
This success is a product of the defense alone

This offense is no better at scoring (from anywhere on the field) than last season’s version

Fail.
Some of the defenses in the top 10 are heavy to the pass side and middling on the run side (I'm looking at you, NO and NYG). We have a stellar all-around defense.
What's up with not being able to take on #1 WRs? Football Outsiders gives a disclaimer there that defining WR roles is subjective, but still: Ochocinco had modest yardage, Braylon was shut down, who the heck knows who's a #1 in Oakland, Roy Williams was middling, and Moss only had one catch. Eh. I give up.
I thought that TEs were supposed to be the weak point of a 5-2 hybrid? Apparently not for us...
The Chargers are currently sitting at #23 (overall team efficiency), playing 13.1% below the league average. By all rights, this is a game we should win. Our offensive ranking is respectable and we are facing a defense with and atrocious ranking, our densive ranking is spectacular and is facing an offense with a very pedestrian ranking, and both of us have been ranked in the top 10 in consistency so far. This should be a win. Anyone want to go to Vegas?
Note from the site, not shown above: our schedule ranking so far has been... well, less than we would hope. We are currently sitting at 27th. Remember, this ranking is not based on prejudiced opinions of a biased media, or last year's record, or anything else equally suspect. This is certainly cause for mitigated joy in Broncoland. To compound the difficulty, our upcoming schedule does indeed look tough -- "brutal" might be a slight overstatement -- our schedule is ranked 9th in the NFL in this category.
More from the site: Check out the QB rankings. Orton is sitting comfortably at #7, above Phyllis, Romo, Favre, Warner, and Schaub. Where's HWMNBN? #25.
Go Broncos! Beat the BlueBelles!

But that's just my opinion...

John Clayton watch -- version 4.01

Sharpe as a Tack — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 05:24:57 -0000

Team Preview -- September 9, 2009: Predicted division finish: 4th, Predicted record: 3-13.

Face it, the Broncos are a mess. They could be a three- or a four-win team if Kyle Orton struggles, the running game gets off to a slow start and Brandon Marshall continues to pout and be immature. To add to things, the defense that gave up 28 points a game is trying a completely new scheme. Ouch.

Wow. Maybe I should stop this series right now, after one installment (note: version 4.01 means Week 4 results, first post). Or maybe I should wait and see what he says after one loss, or two or three. We'll see. Right now, major props to my favorite punching bag, because he ponies up the credit where it is due. I still want to see him acknowledge the existence of his prior predictions, and work them into some form of the sentence "I was wrong about the 2009 Broncos". Until then, I'll stick around. But for now, way to go Mr. Clayton!

Last Call -- October 4, 2009: "The Broncos are no fluke"

Clayton says the Broncos are "for real". He acknowledges this was the start of "an impossible stretch of games" that scared him in the offseason.
He notes the "turbulent" offseason, but give credit to McDaniels for making the regular season "smooth". Clayton calls the Broncos "big players in the AFC playoff race"
"Beating the Cowboys," he says, "was huge"
Credit is given to the defense for stopping the last-minute drive, and to Nolan for "totally taking away" the Cowboys running attack
He's right here, but it still feels like talking out of both sides of his mouth when he credits the Broncos defense in one breath and then turns around and criticizes Romo's decision-making in the next. I'm not going to count this against him, but I don't count it for him either.

My baseline vs. actual results, plus thoughts

Sharpe as a Tack — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 01:25:39 -0000

That was an amazing win. Exciting, scary, and appropriate. The better team won. I loved it!

I made a semi-prediction last week for the stats we could expect from the Dallas game -- HERE

So, in the interests of full disclosure, how did I do?

Here's what I thought trends would... well, trend towards:

Barber/Jones/Choice -- 85 yards, 5.45 yards per carry

Romo -- 216 yards, 0.3 TDs, 1 INT, 63.4 QB rating

Overall running -- 144 yards, 5.9 yards per play

Overall offense -- 348 yards, 6.53 yards per play, 9 points

Here's what happened:

Barber/Choice -- 74 yards, 2.96 yards per carry
Romo -- 255 yards, 0 TDs, 1 INT, 67.06 QB rating
Overall running -- 74 yards, 3.0 yards per play
Overall offense -- 315 yards, 4.4 yards per play, 10 points

Before this game, we were dominating the defensive side of the ball and holding our opponents to significantly less than they were acheiving vs. other teams. We had the #7-ranked rushing defense, the #2-ranked passing defense, and the #1-ranked scoring defense. And you know what happened on our first "real test"?

We outplayed ourselves. Our defense improved. We did better.

And that's just by stats alone. When you consider that holding JaMarcus Russell and Brady Quinn to a 20.7% lower QB rating and 11.6% fewer yards is admirable, but no magnificent feat, consider doing the same for Carson Palmer. Then consider doing better for Tony Romo. Our defense is amazing. It is terrifying. If I'm Tom Brady, I'm waking up to nightmares of Dr. Doom, bearing down on me, ready to pounce.

I'm a little freaked out, actually. My predictions were scarily accurate, and when they were wrong they were mostly too generous. The running game (as a whole) got half as many yards total and WAY fewer yards per carry. And that was supposed to be the strength of the Dallas offense. Romo, despite the "he played poorly" storyline likely to be perpetuated by the MSM, did slightly better than expected: more yards, better QB rating, and typical TD/INT ratio. The offense as a whole got fewer yards, was significantly less effective per play, and only scored one more point compared to stastical trends. It won't happen, but I hope that MSM journalists will read this and desist with putting this on Romo's shoulders.

The fact is, he ran into a buzzsaw and did the best he could. The rest was all Orange and Blue.

John Clayton watch

Sharpe as a Tack — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:40:15 -0000

As always, this is just my opinion.

We here on MHR know that John Clayton is the epitome of a sports journalist masquerading as a serious journalist. Not that one can't be both, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to do so and many (especially those on or connected to ESPN) are bowing to the pressure of their peers. John Clayton is dubbed "The Professor" by his colleagues, but I find this rather sycophantic and woefully inaccurate. I have a better nickname in mind, but it borders on breaking MHR's code of conduct, so I will reserve it for my own giggling/sniggering pleasure.

In the interest of full disclosure and merit-based praise/censure, I am going to start a John Clayton watch now that we have equalled his preseason win prediction for the season (3-13). I've said on other Fanposts that I want accountability in the MSM, and less ill-informed opinion masquerading as expert analysis. I want to provide that accountability for Clayton, and I promise you: if he is honest and open about his mistakes, I will sincerely acknowledge that and stop keeping an eye on him. If not, I'll continue to be a mosquito in a tornado, but at least a mosquito who forms his opinions based on fact instead of fan-based prejudice.

This first installment will be a baseline, covering all his comments on the 2009 Broncos. I'll occasionally alert you to clues to his modus operandi (MO from here on out), which helps to understand how his prior conceptions shape how he views the facts. Also, I'll give you some heads-up to a few snide remarks he throws out from time to time that show both how he overextends himself in criticism of the Broncos (beyond the point of face-saving retraction), and how his descent into faux journalism is complete. So, let's begin!

March 9, 2009: Mailbag -- Broncos' front 7

Clayton admits he is "baffled" and is "not sure what they [the Broncos] are doing", referring to supposedly not addressing the front 7 (i.e., DTs, LBs, DEs) in free agency
He takes issue with taking in 3 new RBs and calls the defensive players aquired "aging"
Snide quote: calls the Broncos free agency period "an expensive tryout camp".
MO alert: Clayton thinks the Broncos "need more help at nose tackle" -- Fields is a "good rotational player", but the Broncos need to trade up to get B. J. Raji. He believes that the Broncos are trying a similar strategy to the 2008 Dolphins: quantity over quality.
To his credit, he acknowledges the above worked for the Fins and says, "we'll see if it works for the Broncos."

March 16th, 2009: Mailbag -- Jay Cutler (pre-trade)

Clayton looks at Jay Cutler and thinks that the Browns would be a good fit. To his credit, he correctly calls the final compensation package (roughly--i.e., two first-rounders and a third-rounder)
MO alert: He calls the situation "messed-up" and places the blame on McDaniels for having "ruined Cutler's confidence in the organization"
Snide quote: believes that McDaniels "continues to push the issue the wrong way by trying to be more like a boss than a diplomat".
He claims that Cutler "apparently had still planned to show up" for the start of the offseason program until talks between Cutler and McDaniels "fell apart because of poor communication"
He believes that "Cook, Jay Cutler's agent, has done nothing... other than offer his support." He claims that Cook "is not trying to play hardball" -- Favre and McNair to the contrary -- and that "the problem is between Cutler and his coach."
He defends Cutler's antics, pleading to "give [him] some space," reminding people of Favre's immaturity in Atlanta and subsequent trade to Green Bay -- "You saw how well that one worked out"

Article -- March 26th, 2009: Jay Cutler (pre-trade)

He speculates that seeing the interest in Jay Cutler ("the hottest trade commodity in the NFL in more than a decade") "might have convinced... Josh McDaniels to try and mend his relationship with the star instead of trying to trade the quarterback."
He reports that Josh McDaniels "continued to try to text or call Cutler", causing Cutler to consider going to the Broncos' facility
He claims McDaniels "fail[ed] to ease Cutler's anger about interest in Matt Cassel", but is now "willing to work with his quarterback."
He opines that Cutler will still be with the Broncos in 2009.

Article -- April 2, 2009: Rookie pay scales

Even in an article that (while inspired by Cutler) doesn't have Cutler as its main topic, he gets in a little jab: "Josh McDaniels scrambles to make the best of a bad Jay Cutler situation."
MO alert: He calls Cutler "proven."

Article -- April 30, 2009: Trading away a future first-rounder

To his credit, he mentions how the Panthers did the same thing this year and last year. He also mentions that it seems to have worked for the Panthers last year. Unfortunately, he loses when he cites Smith's height but fails to cite Everette Brown's height, or the fact that FSU linebackers have a poor NFL record, or the fact that there were lots of questions regarding Brown's motivation. If he questions the merit of one player, he should do so for the other.
He cites Denver's "porous" defense and "several questions" on offense to throw doubt on the strategy
He believes the Broncos "could give Seattle a very high pick in the 2010 draft"

Article -- June 2, 2009: Quarterback competitions

To his credit, he calls Iron Clady "one of the leagues best young tackles."

Mailbag -- June 8, 2009: Broncos and Vick/Young

An obviously disgruntled fan wonders why we can't get Michael Vick or Vince Young. To his credit, Clayton realizes that McDaniels would never stand for such blasphemy.
An odd exchange occurs where he wonders why he's still getting "bombed" with emails from Bronco fans wondering why he questions the Cutler trade. He says, "Orton is good [props at least for that]. Cutler is better. We stand together in our thinking." Ummm... Aren't you kind of missing the point, John?

Article -- July 23, 2009: Training camp storylines

Clayton examines the Broncos, Chiefs, and Packers' switch to a 3-4 look, and states that the Broncos will have the hardest time of the three unless "Ronald Fields can do what wasn't done in San Francisco."
MO alert: he claims that for a 3-4 to work, "you need a great nose tackle who can draw double-team blocks."

Mailbag -- August 3, 2009: AFC West

In answering why the AFC West (supposedly) is the "dregs of the league", he claims that the Broncos "haven't drafted well for years." To his credit, he makes an exception of the 2008 draft.
MO alert: he says, "Better days are ahead, but it's not going to be this season for [the Chiefs, Raiders, and Broncos]"
Interestingly, on the basis that the 2008 draft was "one of [Shanahan's] better drafts," he states he was "stunned" that Shanahan was fired.
Later in the mailbag, he says about Orton, "I thought he came into his own last season with the Bears. The guy has been a winner."
However, he says that Orton will have to be "great" this year to continue his winning ways, because he's now got a "leaky" defense backing him up.

Mailbag -- August 24, 2009: Brandon Marshall

A few things to his credit: he calls Orton "good," and realizes that the Broncos can "get by" without Marshall at WR.
He reiterates his belief that the Broncos' defense is "suspect" and as a result we will "play a lot of shootouts"
MO alert: He sees the middle of our schedule as a place where "it's going to be hard to win many games" -- in fact, from October 4 to Thanksgiving, he says we could "lose all eight [games]"
He is also of the opinion that getting value (i.e., a 1st and 4th rounder) for Marshall is "the wise thing to do if McDaniels is going to build the Broncos back into a playoff team."

First and Ten -- September 9, 2009: Week 1 Previews

Clayton reiterates his opinion that McDaniels "chased away" Jay Cutler and calls the whole affair a "soap opera"
He sees the state of the Broncos as a "mess" and doesn't give them much chance against "a Bengals offense that can put up big numbers". He expects Chad Ochocinco to have "a great day" against the Broncos secondary (final stats: 5 catches, 89 yards, no TDs)

First and Ten -- September 17, 2009: Week 2 previews

According to Clayton, the Bengals offense played "poorly" losing to the Broncos. Seeing as how the Bengals "couldn't do anything with the Broncos' 3-4, they probably will have more trouble with what the Packers and [defensive coordinator Dom] Capers will plan" -- Chad Ochocinco will not be able to do a Lambeau leap (final stats: 4 catches, 91 yards, 1 TD)
Snide comment: he calls the Broncos win over the Bengals "fluky but fun" -- I can almost feel him patting me on the head condescendingly.
Interestingly, he thinks that the Browns' offense "couldn't do anything" vs. the Vikings. Really? 13 points, 268 total net yards, and 5.1 ypc for Jamal Lewis -- not amazing, but certainly something.

Mailbag -- September 30, 2009: Denver's 3-0 record

A veiled mea culpa: He says the Broncos "might reach 6 or 7 wins by the end of the season if they win [either vs. Dallas or New England]". He also says "it's pretty clear the Broncos have established themselves as a better team than the Chiefs and Raiders in the AFC West." Considering his predicted 4th place finish in the division, that's a retraction... of sorts.
He defends his initial 3-13 projection by referring to the "gauntlet" of 8 games coming up between now and Thanksgiving. "Where will the Broncos get their wins during this stretch?" he rhetorically asks.

First and Ten -- October 1, 2009: Week 4 previews

The Broncos are "the biggest surprise in football." Their Week 1 upset of the Bengals was "a stunner".
Snide quote: "Mike Nolan has pieced together a 3-4 defense with some castoff defensive linemen. He has patched the secondary with veterans."

CONCLUSIONS

Really, his words stand well on their own. A few things, though. To his credit, he doesn't seem to be an Orton hater or of the MSM variety who is allured by gaudy QB stats. He also is usually fair with assigning praise where it is due. Still, with the Broncos he put himself past the point of no return long ago. His frequent snide comments, plus his devotion to particular football philosophies (especially about how to build a 3-4 defense), and finally a bizarrely one-sided take on the Jay Cutler situation, have placed his perspective on the Broncos outside the realm of objective journalism. While I don't think he is consciously grinding an axe in regards to the Broncos, I think that his perceptual schema is just as colored as ours is. Honestly, I only see two ways for him to acknowledge any success the Broncos may have: Either capitulate entirely and print the phrase, "I was wrong about the Broncos and Josh McDaniels", or ignore his prior statements to the contrary and slowly transition himself into a believer (in print). What he absolutely cannot do is re-interpret his prior statements as being conditional or contingent. He has painted himself into a corner, which is somewhat unique in the world of sports journalism. Usually, a journalist will leave himself/herself an out, relying on the vagaries of an NFL season and so-called "weasel words" (i.e., should, ought to, might be, probably, etc.) to remove accountability. John Clayton, however, has firmly established himself as someone who is against McDaniels and is invested in the Broncos' failure. We will see if he does the manful thing and admits it, or if he tries to wiggle his way free in the coming weeks.

But as always, this is just my opinion.

Looking ahead

Sharpe as a Tack — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 15:10:17 -0000

As always, this is just my opinion.

Well, here we are at 3-0. Right now, it feels good. We still haven't gotten respect from John Clayton, et. al., due to our cupcake schedule so far (although Cincinnati's success is conveniently overlooked). Also, despite the fact that we cause our cupcake opponents to perform significantly worse against us than against their other opponents . John Clayton's favorite mantra has been that coming up, the Broncos have an 8-game run against "some of the best teams in football " He likes to call it a "gauntlet", in which he rhetorically asks "Where will the Broncos get their wins during this stretch?" Well, Mr. Clayton, I take your challenge. I think that his assessment is based more on 2007-2008 results and/or 2009 projections, rather than actual results so far. In that stretch, I only see two very nasty games and a host of difficult ones. All of them seem winnable; none of them really seem easy, though. First a quick note: I will say that right this very second, if we were to play any of these teams tomorrow, and if those teams were to play to their potential and play as we have been, it is probable we could only hope for an even outcome in wins and losses. However, the three weeks of relative ease we've had to gel, plus our superior conditioning, plus some key injuries and regressions in the teams we will face, means that luck is on our side. And because this is the 2009 Broncos -- like the 2009 Rockies -- we will keep ourselves in a position to take advantage of that when it falls our way, and you can guarantee that we will in fact capitalize on the opportunities presented to us.

So, let's take a look:

Week 4: The Dallas Cowboys (home)

They have looked alternately very good and very poor. In Week 1, they beat up on a Buccaneer team that now looks atrocious. Still, they allowed them 21 points and made Byron Leftwich look halfway decent. Romo looked great in that game -- and the MSM was quick to jump on the bandwagon -- but has looked alternately pitiful and mediocre in his other games (vs. the Giants and the Panthers). Their rushing attack looks formidable, but they are down to 1.5 healthy guys, and they have yet to face a top-5 rush defense like the Broncos. This one looks eminently winnable, and honestly: if we don't win, I will think that something went seriously wrong with the Broncos, rather than the other way around (which is how Clayton is likely to take it).

Week 5: The New England Patriots (home)

This one is tricky. The Pats have barely beat Buffalo, lost convincingly to the Jets, and then handled a good Atlanta team pretty well. This team, despite its being coached by Bellichick, is mercurial and still struggling to get into a rhythm. The MSM is likely to be practically drooling over the storylines these past two weeks: first the Favre reunion, then the Darth Vader - Emperor Palpatine smackdown. I still see this as a very tough game, but I see some great ways to win it for us. First of all, the Pats will be coming to us fresh off of Baltimore. That will be a solid test in more ways than one (more on that in Week 8's writeup), and will tell us a lot about what kind of team we will be facing. I suspect that they will come away beat up and bruised. The Pats' running game is now relying on Fred Taylor who, while he's had an amazing career, is not a feature back anymore. Also, Brady has been tenative under pressure, and is obviously still feeling the effects of the knee injury. His offensive line is very shaky, and we have the sack master in Dr. Doom. We are also playing at home, and the Pats have shown that they are reverting back to being a pass-first team -- music to the ears of the Phonz, Goodman, Hill, Bailey, and Dawkins. I initially called this a loss, but I'm going with a hard-fought win instead.

Week 6: The San Diego Chargers (away)

This is likely to be harder than the Broncos faithful think, but easier than the MSM thinks. I look at SD and see a team that has many good pieces, but consistently fails to put it together -- which has pretty much been the story since 2006. They have so far struggled mightily against Oakland and an underwhelming Miami team, and lost a close one to a pretty good Baltimore team. No question, the Chargers are always dangerous, and even moreso in Qualcomm. But LDT has shown that he is far from the dynamic threat he was 2+ years ago, and Sproles is a guy I can't quite figure out. He looks superb at times, but I can't shake the feeling he is the RB version of Devin Hester: fantastic at returns, but benefitting more from his surrounding cast than innate talent at his slotted position. The SD defense isn't even the shadow of what it was in 2007 -- they're missing Jamaal Williams and Igor Olshansky, and Merriman is a non-factor. Still, this is Phillip Rivers, Antonio Gates, and Vincent Jackson we're talking about here. This, to me, is a coin toss right now. I will have to see how the Broncos do against Dallas and New England first. If you forced me to choose right now, I would go for a last-second Nate Kaeding field goal being the difference. If I were into sacrificing things to the gods, I would do so for this game.

Week 7: Bye

Rest and recoup. Heal injuries. Ignore the media.

Week 8: Baltimore Ravens (away)

If I had to pick "Most overrated team of 2009 through Week 3", I would have to give Baltimore a long, hard look. In many ways they parallel us so far, but because they are stationed on the East Coast and have a "cannon-armed" mobile quarterback, they fit right into the media bias-hole. Back in June, I picked them to seriously regress. Honestly, I had forgotten about that and had gotten caught up in the media hype (and the fact that I have Flacco on one of my fantasy teams) -- until I looked closer. Week 1: they played Kansas City. Meh. Still, they allowed 24 points to them, which is as many as KC scored in their next two games combined. And this is, after all, the Chefs. That's a red flag. Also, Flacco/McGahee/Rice have been able to pad their stats against the likes of KC and the Browns. That's a red flag. They also beat the Chargers, and you know how I feel about them. So here's the point: two games won against two cupcake teams, and one close game won against a team that is at least moderately sound. Sound familiar? And yet, due to the biases inherent in the MSM, they are ranked consistently in the top 5 and have a stellar defense that doesn't miss Rex Ryan one bit. This is a team whose first real test, like ours, comes Week 4. We'll see after that. Right now, however, I'd give us the edge in a low-scoring game very similar to Cincy. We will get two weeks to game-plan them, plus two weeks of rest, plus (I suspect) ample film to display their weaknesses.

Week 9: Pittsburgh Steelers (home)

Along with the Cardinals, the Titans, and the Panthers, add the Steelers to "The most disappointing team of 2009 through Week 3" award list. I'm a U of I alum, and I lived in Illinois most of my life. I thought that Rashard Mendenhall was an idiot to enter the draft as a junior, and I thought that there was a good reason why he fell into the late first round. The Steelers weren't necessarily stupid to pick him where they did, but they didn't get near the value most pundits thought when they got him where they did. His fumbling problems last year, his broken collarbone, and then his getting benched this year for not knowing the playbook -- at least he's not a lockerroom cancer. Still, behind that atrocious offensive line, I suppose I can't give him too much flak. Keep perspective here: Week 1, they beat the Titans, who now look very middling. Week 2 they lost to the Bears and Week 3 they lost to the Bengals, both on last-second plays. That's disheartening. So is getting your quarterback sacked 4 times a game. They're still dangerous, but because Ben Roethlisberger is quite possibly the 3rd-most clutch QB in the history of the NFL, behind the Greatest Ever and Peyton Manning. Everywhere else, they're an implosion waiting to happen. I give this to us, especially at home.

Week 10: Washington Redskins (away)

This is a game that gets blown way out of proportion, IMO. This will not be an easy win for us, but it should certainly be a win. This team has struggled against the Rams and the Lions, losing to the latter. Really, that should tell you all you need to know. Haynesworth is not doing a whole lot (certainly not $100 million's worth), and are you still thinking we should have gotten Orakpo over Moreno? We have shown that we are solid against the run, especially power running up the middle -- which is Washington's style. Jason Campbell and his receiving corps does not scare me in the slightest. Now that we have had time to gel, and barring injuries, and especially if we keep winning, this ought to be a lock for us. And, since this is the 2009 Broncos and we win games we are supposed to win, I'm giving us a win here.

Week 11: San Diego Chargers (home)

Again, I can't quite get a read on us vs. the Chargers. All I've said before still applies, but I give us the win this time due to home-field advantage and continued struggles by the Chargers taking their toll.

Week 12: New York Giants (home)

Ick. The Giants look very good this year, just like the Jets do. They have won in games where they were the better team (Washington, Dallas), and murdered teams who were far below them (Tampa Bay). They seem very well-balanced on offense, and stellar on defense. The one ray of hope I see is the usual injuries to Jacobs and/or Bradshaw. Outside of that, even on our home court, this one goes to the Pansies -- I mean, the New York Giants.

So, that's Clayton's "gauntlet". I see winnable games (Washington, Pittsburgh, Dallas), ones that could go either way (New England, Baltimore, San Diego), and only one near-certain loss (New York). After that, we have the Chefs (win), the Colts (loss), the Faders (win), the Iggles (toss-up based on injuries), and the Chefs again (win). It's really not irrational to believe in 13-3, although I wouldn't put money down on it. I think that I just might put money down on 11-5, however, and now would be the time to do it while we are still 3-point underdogs to Dallas.

But, as always, this is just my opinion.