By the time you see this entry today, you will have already seen the Eli Manning to David Tyree catch 100 times. Manning will be getting ready to sign his 100th new endorsement contract...and New York will be getting set for what seems like its 100th parade. This, after nearly 100 percent of the population that eats, sleeps, and breathes football picked the Pats to march towards their fourth Super Bowl triumph.

However, there were a few people that believed in the power of Big Blue and no, I'm not talking about the 53 players who joined the 1963 Jets, the 1969 Mets, the 1994 Rangers, and the 1996 Yankees that turned the world's GREATEST city on its ear, while putting Tom Brady on his back.

I grew up in East Windsor, New Jersey, eight exits (Jersey thing) from Giants Stadium along with these friends who always bled blue and always believed. This is their day and this is their story.

On January 2, 2008 at 7:18 P.M. Andrew Goldberg, a friend, college basketball maven, and a lifelong Giants fan, e-mailed me regarding Big Blue:

"They might march right into the Super Bowl."

That was before they played the Tampa Bay Bucs in the wildcard round.

Not sure what to think when I saw that.

Carnac Goldberg? I guess.

Best prediction of the year, so far.

I need to consult him before I go buy lottery tickets or hit the horse track! Or both!

Goldberg (referring to him by last name like he's an athlete) traveled from his home in New York to the team's regular season opener in Dallas (now, that's a fan!) and saw New York give up 45 points in a loss to Cowboys. Next week, they yielded 35 to the Packers and seemed more dead than roadkill on the Garden State Parkway (another Jersey thing)--in Colorado-speak, that would be roadkill on Interstate 70.

In the end, they came full circle. After all, they got to the Super Bowl by defeating, who else? The Cowboys and the Packers.

Goldberg's buddy, Osama Abdelwahab, who could be a candidate to be the Rockies fifth starter, texted me about Goldberg:

"Yeah, he's been a believer for while."

Saturday night at 6:52 P.M., while I was heading out to report on the Bobcats-Nuggets game, my friend, Ryan Kohn, a manager at the Prudential in Newark, NJ told me he spent the night before at the Rangers-Devils hockey game at "The Rock" and, as if the NHL isn't already irrelevant enough, the crowd was shouting "Let's Go Giants."

On the eve of the game at 9:23 P.M., I got a text from Adam Gorner, another old friend whose allegiances lie with the 26-time World Series champion New York Yankees, yet nevertheless texted me (love technology!) Giants 31-Patriots 28. No doubt in his mind.

At 9:28 P.M. while sitting at the Nuggets game, my work collegaue, Jessica Rouch, also in attendance with her brother, Peter, texted, "Who do you want to win tomorrow?" I replied, The Giants, because we all grew up so close by, but I didn't have the guts of Goldberg, Choudary, and Gorner to actually make that pick. My heart said, New York...my head, the other team.

The Pepsi Center crowd seem to agree, when the Denver Nuggets mascot, "Rocky," who Rouch and I believe should be in the starting lineup, held up a "Patriots" sign, there were loud boos. When he held up a "Giants" sign, a big cheer. Then, in typical mascot fashion, he ripped up the "Patriots" sign and proceeded to...how can we say this gently?...use it as toilet paper. Who knew mascots even needed to use the bathroom?

The videoboard above the court at the game showed two Giants fans in the crowd. One of them was wearing a Number 56 jersey--no explanation needed if you are a football fan. Hey, as good as LaDanian Tomlinson is, before there was the current "L.T.," there was the original "L.T." I had to smile when I saw that jersey.

The Nuggets won that night 117-101. Little did I think the Giants would join them in the win column about 24 hours later.

The day of the game, a former work colleague of mine, Nathan Shambaugh, assignment manger at WOI-TV in West Des Moines, Iowa, where I used to work prior to joining News 2, said the exact same thing as Gorner: Giants 31-28.

I think that other than the 53 guys in the locker room (particularly Plaxico Burress), these may the only people that may have thought the seemingly impossible could become possible--which happens in sports with stunning regularity.

After the game, Kohn and I were on the phone, stunned.

Then, first thing Monday morning, at 12:05 A.M. to be exact, another friend, Naveen Choudary, an investor based in NYC and a lifetime card carrying member of Big Blue Nation, summed it all up in an e-mail that everyone agreed with:

"Unbelievable game. This is why people love sports. NYC is mayhem right now."

Oh, yeah, I just remembered, we're supposed to be scaling back text messaging on company phones...my bad. Oh, well, on the subject of texting limits, just like the Giants did to their many critics, it's time to just go out and turn a blind eye, it's time to believe in yourself. If you do, as one team showed us, you can accomplish GIANT things.

Translation: Texting will continue, though at a moderate pace :)

Have a great day, and to all the Jersey kids that I name-dropped here like I was reading out of a phone book, I miss you all, hope to see you soon...and enjoy the victory parade up through the Canyon of Heroes on Tuesday...And would you at least go to work for a half-a-day before going to the celebrations at City Hall Plaza and Battery Park City? What are the chances of that happening? I would guess about as much of a chance as the Giants had to win on Sunday.

Oh, wait a minute....

-"z"

The last time the Broncos played the Giants, it was October of 2005.

It was my first month working at News 2 and we made the trip to New Jersey to cover the game. The Broncos went on to finish the regular season at 13-3 and advanced all the way to the AFC Championship Game, but on that day, the Giants, behind Eli Manning, rallied to defeat Denver with a fourth quarter scoring drive.

Prior to Sunday, the way that the "other Manning" (until yesterday) was treated and perceived, it seemed his last meaningful moment was that triumph over the Broncos.

We should all face it, all right, most of us, I'm exempting the Manning family here. As Tom Brady hit Randy Moss to put the Patriots up late in the fourth quarter, it seemed like quintessential Patriots, and set up what many thought would be quintessential Eli--and until Sunday, that meant not coming up big in the biggest of moments.

Broncos supporters knew better than that. They saw Manning hit Amani Toomer to defeat Denver in October of 2005 and last night hit Plaxico Burress in February of 2008.

That said, the question becomes, what can the Broncos learn from this?

I think two distinct ideas come to mind.

1) The defensive pressure the Broncos lacked, especially up front in 2007, more than anything made this team a relative afterthought. They had injuries, they had their share of controversy, but more than anything, it's more than fair to say, any pressure up front would have been a mitigating factor to offset their other problems. If you can pressure the opposing quarterback--any quarterback--even as one as cool and calm as Tom Brady, he will become rattled. The Broncos consistently failed to get pressure on the opposing quarterback, and partly due to that, they missed the playoffs. The Giants had an incredible defensive front and got pressure on Tony Romo, Brett Favre, and Brady--and they won it all.

2) In his fourth year, Eli Manning won the Super Bowl. In 2008, Jay Cutler will enter his third year in the NFL. You can win with a young quarterback, but as any Giants fan will tell you, even with Eli, you need defensive help. The Broncos have Cutler, but the question remains, do they have anything else?

-"Z"

With Super Tuesday over, it's time for Super Wednesday, at least for the Nuggets.

Really, must tell you, I am not a huge fan of saying this is "the biggest game" of any team's season, so with a slight bit of uncomfort, I must say I think this is "the biggest game of the season" for the Nuggets to date.

The Nuggets trail the Jazz in the division and are holding off the Blazers. They got a little breathing room from Portland after Monday's night's win up at the Rose Garden. Now, comes the hard part.

The Jazz, a team on a roll, comes to Denver tonight. Jerry Sloan's bunch has won nine straight games overall and while it is just one game, a win for the Nuggets would be critical. It would give the Nuggets a 2-0 edge in the season series. The teams play twice after tonight, both games in Utah. Once on March 8th and then again on April 12th. So with that said, there remains no more important game for the Nuggets than the one on February 6th...even though I said I wouldn't say that.

-"z"

Yesterday, an 18-year old kid named Darrell Scott had a bunch of men old enough to be his father...let's refer to them as "coaches"--wait, they are coaches...waiting on pins and needles, hoping that their sales pitch would work and Scott would be a part of their recruiting class.

On Wednesday, only one school accomplished that feat, and to the surprise of some nationally, but not so much locally, Scott is headed to Boulder, as the crown jewel of the Buffs' heralded class.

That said, Scott, a running back from Ventura, California, may become the most well-known student-athletes on campus shortly. That said, when was the last time a high school student who was as good in the classroom as Scott is on the field, was pursued this vigourously by any institution? I think we know the answer to that.

That said, a recent study even further drives home the point that the term "student-athlete" makes little sense.

Of the Division I players who participated in the survey, more than two out of three said they consider themselves more "athletes" than they do "students."

Numbers seem to accentuate their claim. According to the survey results:

Football players spend an average of 44.8 hours a week on the sport and less than 40 hours per week on academic subjects.

Baseball players log an average of 40 hours on their game and 32 hours on school.

Thinking that athletics trump academics is not any sort of new development, but with so much emphasis being put on the development of athletes on campus--especially those in football--how can so many projected stars with so much help and support, end up so ordinary?

I have no statistics to support this, though I would guess the top academic students who are accepted--though not recruited--to that same college, end up less famous, and possibly, a little more successful.

-"z"

The moment the Suns traded for Shaquille O'Neal, the talk shifted to whether Phoenix or Miami got the better end of the deal. While that debate was being waged in the desert and on Ocean Drive, in Denver, the Nuggets had to wonder whether their drive for a title might have just taken a hit.

The Suns' up-tempo offense was winning them games in the regular season, but come playoff time, their frenetic pace was a hindrance. Teams that could execute in the half court and play solid defense, especially San Antonio, were prevailing, while the Suns rather high-octane offense was flailing.

In addition to the half court issue, the Suns were almost constantly being reminded their lack of a true center was another reason why their regular season success wasn't translating to the postseason. Consider this: eight of the last nine NBA Championships have been won by teams featuring O'Neal and Tim Duncan.

Those two factors meant that even though Phoenix had the top mark in the Western Conference prior to the huge trade, the team's front office felt that the team, as currently constituted, could not win the NBA title.

Suns guard Steve Nash turned 34 years old yesterday and at some point, there has to be a point of diminishing returns. Nash, along with Allen Iverson and Jason Kidd, are defying their age on the court, but Suns General Manager Steve Kerr knew the window to win might rapidly be closing for his current core group of players. In the NBA, once that window closes, it rarely reopens with that same roster.

The Suns were fun to watch, though the trade becomes a tacit sort of admission that Phoenix was not going to win the NBA title without a tweak or two. Turns out they ended up getting a tweak or two or three...hundred pounds in O'Neal.

It remains to be seen whether the trade will pay off for Phoenix, but it does tell the Nuggets that they may want to make a change to their roster as well.

The Nuggets molded their offense after that of Phoenix and if the team they are modeling themselves after have given up their style of play, it can't be a good sign for the Nuggets. Phoenix ran their offense far more crisply than Denver ever could hope to duplicate. The Suns can at least take comfort in the fact that they were successful implemeting their style in the regular season. The Nuggets weren't even really doing that and if they don't do something soon to get themselves a force to counter the new arrival of O'Neal and the incredible steadiness Duncan, they may find themselves with something really familiar to them...yet another first round playoff downer.

"Z"

Baseball calls its offseason "The Hot Stove."

The NFL has no unofficial moniker for its downtime. Maybe that's because even when there are no games being played, there is no downtime.

Therefore, this week, our focus turns to the National Football League. Here is a quick preview:

Today: Guess who has the easiest schedule in the league in 2008?

Tuesday: What has happened to the AFC West? (Excluding you, San Diego, but as Ron Burgundy would say, "stay classy" anyway.)

Wednesday: Possibly rethinking the Rooney Rule.

Thursday: The teams ready to make a big vault into playoff contention.

Friday: The teams perhaps taking a step back.

There you have it, so without any further weekly planning, let's begin.

So, who has the easiest schedule in the NFL in 2008?

I have a feeling you are not going to like this answer, but as if the Patriots don't have enough going for them...

You surprised it's New England?

Consider this statistic comparing their past success and future potential: In 2007, during the regular season, the Patriots on the way to a 16-0 record, defeated six teams that had at least 10 victories. In 2008, the combined win percentage of their opponents is .387. That is lower than the Broncos success rate in the NFL Draft.

I am sorry, that was too easy.

The Patriots, as always, will play the AFC East teams twice. That means a pair of contests each with the 1-15 Dolphins, the 4-12 Jets, and the 7-9 Bills.

The AFC West is another group they will play. That means a game at San Diego. However, that doesn't seem so bad considering, after that test, they also get to face the 4-12 Raiders, the 4-12 Chiefs, and the 7-9 Broncos. I mean, there's a reason they call this division the "AFC Worst."

They will face the NFC West as well. That means the 3-13 Rams, the San Francisco team that had two quarterbacks and five wins, the 8-8 Cardinals, and the 10-6 Seahawks.

In all, the Patriots will face five teams with a winning mark. They face just one team, Pittsburgh, with a winning record at home.

The combined winning percentage of Denver's opponents is .417. So, a big season is not out of the question. If they can regain some of what used to be a huge home field edge, it could that much more special.

The Broncos, like the Patriots, face five teams with a winning record. They are New England, San Diego, Jacksonville, Cleveland, and Tampa Bay. Three of the five are division winners and four of the five won at least 10 games last season.

They also have seven games against teams that are considered among the worst in the NFL. That would include the Raiders and Chiefs each twice, the Jets, the Dolphins, and the 4-12 Atlanta Falcons. Therefore, their schedule may not be as easy as that of New England, though there are plenty of winnable games, a reason to be optimistic for a nice season.

One last thing to keep in mind. Teams that struggle one year in the NFL can rebound quickly. In 2006, the Bucs finished in last place in the NFC South. In 2007, they won it. The Saints made the same leap from 2005 to 2006. The Browns went from four wins in 2006 to ten last season. Therefore, having an easy schedule is beneficial, but a lot of teams that struggle one year, the numbers show, may not be easy opponents the following season.

Have a great day, I hope to see you here tomorrow.

-"z"

It was just two years ago.

Just two short seasons ago.

Seems like waaaaay longer than that, though.

Of the six teams in the NFL Playoffs following the 2005 season, half of the field came from the AFC West.

San Diego, Kansas City, and Denver were all invited to the postseason party. Denver made it all the way to the AFC Championship Game...and they haven't made the playoffs since.

Even the black (and silver) sheep of the division, the Oakland Raiders, have held their own. Of the four teams in the AFC West, the Raiders, yes, the Raiders were the most recent division team to play in the Super Bowl. That was in 2002.

These days, the only signs of veritable Super Bowl aspirations in the AFC West are coming from San Diego. The other three teams in the division scare absolutely nobody. So what can San Diego do to take the next step and what can the other teams do to keep in step with the Chargers? Let's take a look.

Denver Broncos 7-9 in 2007

Positive: A good nucleus to build around and Jay Cutler has made nice progress as he enters his third season in the NFL in 2008. The biggest ally may not be on the roster, but instead the schedule. In 2008, the combined winning percentage of Denver's opponents is .417. That, more than anything, could make this team primed for a comeback year.

Negative: They are on their third defensive coordinator in three years. They need help along the defensive line. They have some potential, but that "potential" morphing into "playmaking" is the key. The Giants won the Super Bowl with a defensive unit putting tenacious pressure on the quarterback. The Broncos, on the other hand, had virtually no pressure on the quarterback and look where they ended up. The offensive line should be better but they need to start developing for the future as well. For years, the interior line has been the key to their offensive success and running game. Tom Nalen should return and they are cautiously hoping Ben Hamilton will do the same. However, Nalen is entering his 15th year. Up front, both offensively and defensively, they need to replenish if they want to be rejuvenated. If John Lynch returns, that would be great, but he would be entering his 16th season as well. You get my point: it's time to start planning for the future but still trying to win the present, a difficult balancing act for sure.

Kansas City Chiefs: 4-12 in 2007.

Positive: Larry Johnson. Dwayne Bowe. Jared Allen. That's it.

Negative: Well, everything else. If the Broncos need a little tweak, the Chiefs need a complete overhaul. The problem is, they started this process a little too late. They have a great running back in Johnson, but with a shaky offensive line and a quarterback that may or may not represent the future. So, with that said, defenses can key on Johnson and make Kansas City defeat them in another way. Then again, since Kansas City's offense is one-dimensional, that would be easier said than done.

Oakland Raiders: 4-12 in 2007.

Positive: I had to think hard about this one. I found something, though: They doubled their win total in 2007. That sounds great, however, they went from two victories to four, so, I guess that may not be so great.

Negative: At this juncture, their head coach is Lane Kiffin. However, reports continue to say that owner Al Davis wants him out and asked him to resign. Kiffin isn't budging. Hard to believe this franchise used to be one of the best in the NFL. They have had five head coaches...maybe six, depending on Kiffin's tenuous future...in eight years.

San Diego Chargers: 11-5 in 2007.

Positive: They have the best roster in terms of talent in the AFC West. Philip Rivers playing six days after knee surgery last month may have won him the locker room. They have the best running back in the game. They have a hugely talented tight end. They have a young and talented playmaking defense. They have mostly cultivated their roster through the draft and instead of free agency, which is one of the reasons they made the AFC Title Game and the Broncos missed the postseason for the second straight year. Norv Turner proved he can be an effective head coach. The pieces, are for the most part, in place for another big run.

Negative: Hard to find a lot. Running back Michael Turner is a free agent and they could have gotten some value for "Turner the Burner" with a trade but kept him. Keeping him in the fold paid off, as he played a big role in the Playoffs. Now, though, it seems hard to think they can keep him. Many teams could use a talent like him, and the Chargers have a little talent in front of him with LaDanian Tomlinson, so if he goes, it might be an outward loss, but how good would he look in orange and blue? Can't see it happening, but wouldn't you like to see it?

Have a great Tuesday and we will continue our look at the NFL tomorrow with my thoughts on the "Rooney Rule."

-"Z"

In December of 2002, Pittburgh Steelers Chairman Dan Rooney, a face anonymous to many fans, spearheaded an initiative that changed the way one of the biggest sports entities in this country operates.

Safe to say, the "Rooney Rule" isn't nearly as anonymous as its namesake but it has provided some hiring opportunities to those who may never have had the chance. However, as the rule enters its sixth year, questions need to be asked, not about its relevance, but instead the implementation of its fundamental infastructure.

Roger Goodell likes to say on every topic, whether it's the Pro Bowl, playoff seeding, or playing games overseas--that the league can always improve, change, and do better. The same can be said for the "Rooney Rule."

The rule stipulates that for every head coaching opening in the NFL, at least one minority candidate must be interviewed. It stands to reason that the doors that may have been closed to these individuals previously, the "Rooney Rule" would help creep open.

The New York Jets were looking for a head coach to replace Bill Parcells, when thanks to the "Rooney Rule," Herman Edwards, an assistant for the Tampa Bay Bucs, interviewed for the position. He so impressed Jets officials that he was given the job. He took New York to three playoff appearances. Would he have even gotten an interview if it wasn't for the rule? It's hard to say, but it's fair to note that thanks to it, Edwards got his first head coaching job and the Jets found a candidate they may have never considered otherwise

There have been other success stories. Mike Tomlin was a 34-year defensive coordinator with the Minnesota Vikings. Through the "Rooney Rule," he interviewed with the Pittsburgh Steelers, the team Rooney owns. One year later, he took them to the NFL Playoffs, stands as only the third head coach in Steelers history, and one of the bright young minds in the game.

The "Rooney Rule" though, like many rules in our world, can be easily circumvented--and that is why this rule needs re-examination.

The one exception to the civic-minded rule is the following: If a current assistant coach on the staff is in line to succeed a head coach, the "Rooney Rule" does not apply. Therefore, no minority candidates have to be considered in cases like this.

Here is the issue I have with that: The NFL reasons that promoting an assistant continues a path of stability for a franchise and therefore becomes exempt to the "Rooney Rule." However, what is wrong with at least letting minorities interview? Maybe, a team has an experienced guy like the Jets did with Edwards and the candidate just wows the whole room. All I'm saying is that bringing a few guys in to discuss the job can't hurt at all, could it?

The Seattle Seahawks did this a week ago. They named the team's secondary coach, Jim Mora, Jr., to eventually replace head coach Mike Holmgren--so "the Rooney Rule" does not apply. I 'm not saying Mora, Jr. won't be a great coach; after all, he took the Atlanta Falcons to the NFC Championship game. (Although his career head coaching record in the NFL is 24-22. Fair to say the Seahawks could do a little better, right?)

Well, according to the "Rooney Rule," they don't have to do better. The "Rooney Rule" is great for the NFL, but much like other important issues, it needs a tweak as well.

Hope to see you on Thursday.

"-Z"

Chances are you have seen everything you want to already on Roger Clemens.

That said, instead of just piling on, let's talk about something that isn't debatable, unlike yesterday's testimony on Capitol Hill.

The NFL is getting set for an interesting off-season. Each division has a winner but each also has a team that is on the rise. Let's examine those teams who may not be making news today, but by making a few moves this offseason, could be headline news later this year.

The AFC East: Miami Dolphins
We start by admitting that when you are coming off a 1-15 season, there is pretty much only one direction you can head, so their inclusion on this list is kind of by default. Although, they have the potential to be good this season. Consider this: In 2007, they lost seven games by seven points or less.

They have a new front office and head coach. Bill Parcells hired Jeff Ireland to run the operations and Tony Sparano to coach the team. Parcells has been an NFL head coach with four teams. He took three of them to the Super Bowl. If he's calling the shots, his track record proves the Dolphins are heading in the right direction and discernable progress could be coming sooner rather than later.

The AFC North: Cleveland Browns
Hard to fathom a team that won 10 games would qualify as "on the way up." I mean, you could argue that with that victory total, you have already arrived. However, the Browns have been an afterthought since the franchise returned to the NFL in 1999--that is, until last season. Even with the win total, they did not qualify for the postseason in 2007. Most of that was of their own doing, they squandered a chance by losing to a very medicore Bengals team, which more than anything shows, the Browns aren't quite there yet. A team that needs a win against a free-falling Bengals team, gets that win. They didn't. However, in due time, I get the feeling that they will.

The AFC South: Houston Texans
If there is any team that appears to be heading in the right direction, it's Houston. They won six games in 2006 and eight last season. Their 8-8 mark in 2007 marked the first time the franchise has not had a losing record. Gary Kubiak, who was a staple in Denver for years, is trying to duplicate his success in Houston. However, I am not totally sold on their quarterback situation. Matt Schaub has been impressive but seems to be injured often. His backup, Sage Rosenfels, has been impressive but hasn't played enough to warrant too much confidence. What's that old saying? If you have two quarterbacks, you have no quarterbacks.

The AFC West: Denver Broncos
This seems like the easy choice simply because San Diego is already in rarefied air and the Chiefs and Raiders are just so behind the curve, the Broncos are the only choice. They are 7-9 but have the talent to be far better. They have a quarterback for the next 11-13 years. They have one of the best coaches in the NFL. Their defensive line? Not one of the best in the NFL. That last part is the key.

The NFC East: Philadelphia Eagles
The Eagles finished with eight wins. One of those wins was at Dallas. One of those losses was at New England. Their slim loss to the Patriots gave the NFL a blueprint on how to play New England. They have the quarterback and a steady head coach that have taken them to four NFC Championhip games. They are not that far from getting back to those heights.

The NFC North: Minnesota Vikings
Here in town, we got to see the Vikings in their final regular season game of 2007. They have a quarterback who improved mightily throughout the season. Their running back, Adrian Peterson, perhaps made one of the biggest splashes in the NFL in recent times. Their run defense is solid. Therefore, they can run the football and stop the run. Nice combination to have.

The NFC South: New Orleans Saints
The team has a lot of talent and a young and talented head coach. They are set at quarterback and thought they were set at running back but that latter position has become a bit of an issue. Reggie Bush has the skills but after a nice rookie season, he underwhelmed in 2007. He needs a rebound year and if he does I think New Orleans will bounce back as well.

The NFC West: Arizona Cardinals
The easy selection is the Rams--after all, they were decimated by injuries a year ago. They lost their starting quarterback and running back due to injuries for a significant stretch but questions remain about head coach Scott Linehan. So, the pick here is actually the Cardinals. They finished 8-8 last year, an improvement of four games from 2007. They have a great coaching staff but much like the Saints, their hopes are pinned on one player. It's not Bush, like in New Orleans--but instead Reggie's old college teammate at USC, quarterback Matt Leinart. His rapid development isn't hopeful--it is expected. If so, perhaps this team, always a favorite to be a sleeper, may finally wake up to that reality.

I hope to see everyone here back on Friday.

-"Z"

What is that old adage? What comes up must go down. Yesterday, I detailed the teams I think are ready for a move up, that said, how about those who may be moving in the opposite direction. Yesterday, I thought each division had a team ready to rise, this time around I think there are two divisions where everything is looking up and no teams will be going down--- meaning those divisions will be stronger, but as a result, more difficult to win.

The AFC East: The New York Jets
Hard to say this because I grew up out there, but the issue for me is that this team is not growing at the most important position on the entire team: quarterback. Chad Pennington hasn't as much won the job the last two years as much as he just hasn't lost it. The player pushing him, Kellen Clemens, has potential, which is the why the Jets made him a second round pick. However, let's face it: If either of these guys is your starter, you can't feel comfortable and that is just a sad state of affairs. Pennington in 2002 looked like he had the chance to have a spectacular career, now in 2008, things look a lot less promising. Blame injuries and blame depth, bottom line, there is a lot of blame to go around.

The AFC North: Cincinnati Bengals
Not a lot of hope here. The team's most important player, quarterback Carson Palmer, said he doesn't think head coach Marvin Lewis can turn this team around. Not exactly a vote of confidence there. Will they trade Chad Johnson? They say no. Do they have a chance? I think no.

The AFC South: Uh, Nobody.
Three of the four teams went to playoffs in 2007 and nobody finished with a losing record. That's impressive across the board.

The AFC West: Kansas City Chiefs
The simple selection is the Oakland Raiders. That said, they have fallen so far in the six years since their last Super Bowl appearance, their decline is an old and tired issue. The Chiefs is the pick. Issues at quarterback, offensive line, and secondary. The coach is on the hot seat and so is the general manager. Other than that, everything is fine.

The NFC East: Uh, once again, nobody
Three of the four teams went to the playoffs and much like the AFC South, nobody had a losing record last season. The worst team in the division was the 8-8 Eagles and they have gone to four NFC Championship Games recently. As for the other teams, Dallas won 13 games in the 2007 regular season, the Redskins won nine games, and the Giants, well, they just won Super Bowl XLII.

The NFC North: Chicago Bears
Questions at starting quarterback and any team that has that problem has, well, problems. They have Rex Grossman, Brian Griese (remember him?), and Kyle Orton. What more needs to be said? They have a solid defense, though their inability to move the ball cost them Super Bowl XLI and I don't think it's going to get better. I think this organization got cocky after winning the NFC two seasons ago. They lost some of their bite, the question is can they regain their top form?

The NFC South: Atlanta Falcons
Perhaps the easiest selection to make. This team basically couldn't give their head coaching job to anyone. Bill Parcells said no, Jason Garrett said no, Tony Sparano said no, and Bill Cowher said no. Can they turn it around? I say...well...for the purposes of consistency, I'll say no.

The NFC West: San Francisco 49ers
Could have said coming into the 2007 season, this was a team that many expected to be a contender. This past off-season after a 5-11 record, it is safe to say they were a contender only for the title of "disappointing team of the 2007 season." Mike Nolan was the head coach and general manger, now he's only the head coach. Another poor effort and his title of head coach may be in peril.

Have yourself a great weekend and I will see you back here on Monday.

-"Z"

Just how competitive is the NBA's Western Conference?

Consider the following: The Nuggets are on pace to win 50 games, but it still might not be enough to make the NBA Playoffs.

How tight is the Western Conference? Denver has their best All-Star break record in about three decades, but, if the playoffs started today, they would be out. The NBA invites the top eight in each Conference to the postseason party and currently the Nuggets are sitting in ninth place.

How close is Denver to being both in and out of the NBA Playoffs? Well, this might produce the most interesting statistic of all: The Hornets have the best record in the West. The Nuggets, currently in ninth, are just four-and-half games out of first place. That means, nine teams are separated by just four-and-half games. That is more of a logjam than you're bound to find on I-25 at 5:00 P.M. every weekday.

That said, the possibilities that are in front of the Nuggets seem voluminous and varied. They could miss the playoffs, with the Northwest Division, or finish with the top seed in the West, and I don't think anybody would be shocked by any of these developments. Think about that. They could miss the playoffs because of the competitive nature of the division and you wouldn't be shocked. Then again, they could finish on top, after all, they have 30 games to make up four-and-a half game deficit in the standings--and that wouldn't be totally surprising.

Their tenuous position already established, what should the Nuggets do? Guard Allen Iverson likes the team the way it is and I agree. I do not think they should make a trade for the sake of making a trade. Phoenix had to acquire Shaquille O'Neal since they felt their previously constituted roster was not going to be enough to win it all. Their only goal is to win an NBA title, anything else would be a disappointment, so while this was a risky trade, in the mind of Suns General Manager Steve Kerr, it had to be done. The Lakers, considering how little they had to give in return to acquire forward Pau Gasol, made the right call as well.

The main difference between those teams and the Nuggets is that Denver's front office feels as currently comprised, this team is good enough to win it all. They have lacked consistent play and intensity, particularly on the defensive end at times this season, but there is still a feeling that if it all clicks--a huge "if"--that this team has major potential come April, May, and June.

If they do make a trade, I would prefer to see them go after Ron Artest. I know...you think I'm nuts and you're wondering if I've looked into the possibility of them bringing on Latrell Sprewell as well just to make the undisputed leader in shady players on the roster. But hear me out on this one.

Artest, as well as Mike Miller and Zach Randolph have been mentioned as possibilities to join the roster. Artest is the only one of those three who is a capable defender and brings incredible intensity to the floor every night. Those two attributes would give the Nuggets a lift in areas in which they seeminmgly are a little deficient. Also, Artest does not need the basketball to be effective and that might be his best characteristic, at least if you add him to this current Denver mix. You already have two guys who need the ball a lot in Carmelo Anothony and Iverson--so anyone that joins the team would have to willingly defer on the offensive end and contribute somewhere else. Miller is a shooter so he needs touches. Randolph is more of a scorer than a defender and would need the ball as well. Hey, sorry, but with two guys that are in the top five in the NBA in scoring, how much more do you think they are willing to share the basketball?

That said, Artest is the best gamble, in my estimation. That being said, he is a gamble for sure because as we know, he can be great on the court, but off the court, well, you know...

The other option is what Iverson currently supports: do nothing. Adding anyone is going to put Denver in a transition phase in which they will have to learn how to implement that person into their style of play and with their current situation, they have no time to waste.

To me, the idea of experimentation is for the pre-season, not for the second half of your regular season.

If Chucky Atkins returns and Nene is healthy, does that give them enough? I'm not sure. In a clutch situation, do you want Steve Nash, Tony Parker, or a combination of Anthony Carter and Atkins? That's what I thought. So maybe you trade for a point guard? I say no, because that's just another guy who is taking the basketball out of the hands of Anthony and Iverson. Those two players perform much better through isolation rather than being set up by a point guard, so to me, it's just another addition that means subtraction for your two best players.

Anthony would like to add Artest. Iverson would like to do nothing. Head Coach George Karl just wants to make the postseason. At this point, I'm not exactly sure which person will get their wish.

-"Z"

I want to start by thanking everybody who offers feedback to this blog on a regular basis.

Your suggestions are key to making this a fun enterprise for me and hopefully something useful (occasionally!) for you.

That being said, we are starting a new feature called "Ten For Tuesday." I surf the web often looking for information for my stories and sometimes I run across topics not particularly related to sports, yet, nonetheless, interesting. So I keep a note of them and I figure every Tuesday, I will link the ten most interesting ones I have found---some about sports, others about life in general.

So, if you have something to pass along that we can post each Tuesday, feel free to do so. My e-mail is zmehenti@cw2.com.

Here we go with our first weekly picks:

1) The happiest place on earth is where? Well, let's put it this way. Who needs a Gross Domestic Product when you can have something called "Gross National Happiness"?

2) Most of us knew Ricardo Patton as the former CU Men's Basketball Coach but he proved that he is much more than that after the tragedy at Northern Illinois University.

3) If you think the NBA and its players are out touch, perhaps this columnist will change your mind.

4) He has more catches than Michael Irvin. He has won two Super Bowls, and owns pretty much every Broncos receiving record but unlike Irvin, this NFL stalwart
will most likely not be heading to the Pro Football Hall Of Fame.

5) I am going to see this movie on Thursday night. If you are an avid runner like me, several different theaters in Colorado are, uh, running (pun intended) this film for a second encore presentation on February 21.

6) Does this mean it will be a "rocky road" for ice cream lovers?

7) Speaking of ice cream, Barack Obama has picked up at least two big endorsements in the state of Vermont.

8) First, no team wanted him. Now, he is being paid a whopping sum of $4.3 million for just 30 days of work.

9) Take it from this member of the Rockies, steer clear of steer.

10) Simply put, Will Ferrell=laughter.

Have a great Tuesday. Hope to see you back here tomorrow.

-"z"

Here is something I still find myself shaking my head about in equal parts bewilderment and amazement:

How will the Rockies prepare to defend their National League title?

"Rockies" and "National League Title"........those words, to some, even those who bleed purple, may still be a little hard to fathom, but it still sounds great, doesn't it?

They have a strong pitching staff with a lot of young arms in Jeff Francis, Ubaldo Jiminez, Franklin Morales, and Manny Corpas.

To me, Aaron Cook at a rate of $34 million, is a questionable move.

How Brian Fuentes bounces back after losing his closer's job, is also a question.

That said, here are the real questions:

The Rockies say they offered Josh Fogg a one-year, $5 million deal. For his part, Fogg says he doesn't know about that offer. What? Does that make any sense? One side says they offered millions and the other side hasn't heard about it. Considering Fogg has no other current offers, he might want to make a call to General Manager Dan O'Dowd. Call collect, Josh, if the Rockies want to give you $5 million, they'll accept the charges.

The signing of Kip Wells for one year at $3.1 million also raises some eyebrows. Wells has led the National League in losses in two of the last three seasons. He lost 18 games in 2005 and dropped 17 in 2007. Is that the kind of guy you want to bring in? Will a player like that get the fan base excited? Granted, playing in Pittsburgh certainly helped him achieve those lofty yet dubious numbers but, hey,being a league leader in any statistical category is impressive......as long as that category isn't losses.

In the winter prior to the 2007 season, the Rockies signed pitcher Rodrigo Lopez. He led the American League in losses in 2006. Wells? Lopez? Why go after these types of pitchers? They got numbers, just not the ones you're looking for.

This is part of a larger problem the team may be facing. This is the best they can do on the free agent market with pitchers because rightly or wrongly, the perception is this: Coors Field is a place where pitchers come to die.

The evidence says that may not be true anymore, but the perception lives on----and that is what matters. We all live in a "perception is reality" world. So while the fortunes of pitchers may be changing at Coors Field, their opinions on the place, for the most part,have not.

The corner of Blake and 20th in lower downtown used to be an offensive launching pad. These days, it's not exactly a rocket launcher, but Coors Field is still a hitter's park.

Most pitchers, for that reason alone---fair or not---may not consider the Rockies as a possible suitor in free agency. They feel their statistics may suffer and a confidence drop-off may ensue. There are statistics that show other stadiums are more run friendly than Coors Field. However, the perception is that nothing could be further from accurate.

For their respective part, the Rockies may feel the same way about pitchers as pitchers do about them. After still feeling the pain of the Mike Hampton and Denny Neagle tenure, the front office may be a little shy about handing over top dollar even now.

The most interesting part of this whole situation, to me, is that all of this indecision can actually lead to something decisive. That is, the way to build a pitching staff is through the farm system and not free agency. Draft your own kids, groom them, teach them, and watch them flourish. I mean, after all, what do Francis, Cook, Morales, Corpas, and Jiminez all have in common? They were all drafted by the team who they are paying dividends for now. Not too bad for an organization that could never attract pitchers.

"z"

Today in Indianapolis, an event all of us sports fans discuss so much but really know very little about is taking place: The NFL Scouting Combine.

The truth of the matter is, this event has reached an unprecedented level of attention for what it is: a bunch of guys running around in shorts, bench pressing weights, and running the 40-yard dash----in other words, it's your sixth grade gym class.

In between, it's time spent interviewing with teams and being administered tests----in other words, an event that seems as boring as it seems manufactured.

Here's the catch though-----and trust me, this is one that doesn't involve a wide receiver. The combine may be a fan's dream but to an NFL team, it's actually a very small piece to their overall organizational picture.

Sure, most teams build through the NFL Draft these days. The simple notion that free agency is too expensive and too much of a gamble these days has made that a rather agreeable explanation. However, do scouts learn more watching a guy in college for years or by watching him run around some cones in Indianapolis for a day? I'd always take the former.

This is why I think the NFL scouting combine is highly overrated. Years of work by a collegiate player show plenty of things that a one-shot deal or snapshot at the Combine cannot. An entire body of work shows the ability of a player to improve, mature, and really grow into his own as a football player. At the Combine, a body of work means two 40-yard dashes run a few hours apart.

There is also very little hitting at the combine. In one way that makes sense, after all, players come here to be tested, not to potentially fall victim to injury. However, if you're evaluating someone's ability to play football, shouldn't their ability to absorb punishment---something they will most likely endure when they arrive in the NFL----be shown also?

A lot of teams show up wanting to find a "diamond in the rough" type player and while that may occur, consider this also when evaluating the importance of the Combine. The Broncos decided that Jay Cutler was going to be their star quarterback of the future and they hardly talked to him at the Combine.

These next few days may not alter the overall status of a top prospect, though it can help to enhance the status of marginal players and for that I think this event is positive. They have a chance to shine and turn some heads, when ordinarily they would be pushed aside. Other than those players getting a fair shot, I see little upside to this yearly hype. Although, plenty of others do. There will be around 300 players on hand------and 400 members of the press to cover them. Sound a bit strange? Yeah, 400 reporters covering 300 athletes. That is how big this has become.

My final argument is this: In 2000, a kid that grew up in San Mateo, California and played quarterback at the University Of Michigan showed up in Indianapolis to be tested. He did some work to show his skills and sat down with the front office types to gauge his intelligence. The consensus? Not great, I would guess because he ended up being a sixth round pick that year.

So whatever happened to Tom Brady anyway?

-"z"

The top nine teams in the Western Conference in the NBA are separated by five games. Quite the tight pack, to be sure. Consider this: the Golden State Warriors would be out of the playoffs if they started today, although, they are only five games behind New Orleans for the best overall mark in the West.

This all means if the Nuggets have a shot, they aren't the only ones that feel that way. A quick look at the nine teams vying for eight spots and a quick thought on each.

1) New Orleans Hornets (37-15)
How good is the Western Conference? New Orleans is sitting at the top, yet almost nobody thinks they have a chance to represent the West in the NBA Finals this June. That tells you how deep the other contending teams are. Or maybe it tells you that New Orleans needs to start playing with a chip on its shoulder.

2) Los Angeles Lakers (37-17)
Has anyone revived their reputation better than Lakers General Manger Mitch Kupchak? Criticized for not trading Andrew Bynum, not appeasing Kobe Bryant, and everything else wrong with the franchise, he made everything right with one move. He got Pau Gasol. Bryant got his second scoring option and Gasol can play without the pressure of being a primary scoring option. Plus, they gave up almost nothing, to get a player that is, a special something. When healthy (a big concern) they can reclaim their glory the way Kupchak has reclaimed his good name.

3) Phoenix Suns (37-17)
The Suns had the best record in the West when they traded for Shaquille O'Neal. To me that says, even though they were playing the best of any team of the bunch, they knew it wasn't going to be good enough. Is that a nod to the strength of other teams or an admission of hesitation on their own team? Only General Manager Steve Kerr knows.

4) Utah Jazz (35-19)
This is a team that is doing their work very quietly. They obtained Kyle Korver in a move that didn't get near the attention of the other big trades of the last week or so. You may say that Korver is a one dimensional player. Maybe so, but the Jazz are so solid, they don't need a mulitfaceted threat, they need a guy who can fill in a hole, in this case, a gaping shooting hole.

5) San Antonio Spurs (36-17)
In fifth at the moment, however, I do not know any team that wants any part of these guys in the NBA Playoffs. They have won three of the last five NBA titles. Hard to imagine that already they are being counted out. That would be a big mistake, in my opinion.

6) Dallas Mavericks (35-19)
Made a move and gave up the future for the present to make it happen. They had to, they see their window shrinking. Jason Kidd will do fine, though other than Erick Dampier, do they have anybody to battle on the interior? In addition, Dampier vs. Tim Duncan? Dampier vs. O'Neal? Damper vs. Bynum? Dampier vs. Yao Ming? You get my point.

7) Houston Rockets (34-20)
Have won ten in a row. However, neither Tracy McGrady or Ming have ever been to the second round of the NBA Playoffs. Hard to imagine they might break through this year when the Conference seems deeper than it ever has been since those two have been in the pros.

8) Denver Nuggets (33-20)
Much like Allen Iverson, I was pleased they made no move at the trade deadline. The addition of a player just means having to adjust again and in the eighth spot, they have very little room for experimentation.

9) Golden State Warriors (33-21)
Had Stephen Jackson not missed the first six games of the NBA season, you get the feeling they would not be fighting it out for a spot. They can also present matchup problems, just ask Dallas.

Have a nice weekend, I hope to see you here on Monday.

-"z"

We can be honest here. There is nothing super about the SuperSonics.

If you think you've had a tough year as a Nuggets fan, just be glad you're not a Sonics supporter. These two teams began the season by playing one another and since that night in October, both teams have gone in separate directions.

The Nuggets are 33-23 while the Sonics are 15-41. They are separated by 18 games in the NBA's Northwest Division, although, those numbers are misleading. Denver was expected to be great, instead, they are merely good and maybe headed in the wrong direction. Speaking of wrong direction, we bring you the Sonics. Their record is terrible and they were expected to be terrible. So let's make one thing clear: Tonight's game between the two is ALL ABOUT the Nuggets and very little about the Sonics.

I took the last five days off from writing this blog and the Nuggets apparently were also on vacation in that span. They actually played two games, both losses, and both could come back to haunt them.

A loss to the Bulls on Friday night in which they trailed by as many as 23 points. That was followed up by a loss to Milwaukee on Saturday night in which they led by as many as 23 points before folding like a blackjack player with a bad hand in Las Vegas.

The team wants to put those losses behind them but as much as it pains Nuggets fans to do, it might be beneficial to reflect for a moment on those two defeats, since they are a microscosm of what this team's season has been all about.

They went into Chicago on Friday night, two days removed from a giant home win against the Boston Celtics, one of the best teams in the NBA. After a night in the Windy City, in which they gave up 135 points to one of the most disappointing teams in the East, you could be upset, though, hardly surprised by their performance.

Right there, in that two game span, the team's two biggest problems surfaced, as they have all season long: Defensive intensity and inconsistency.

After giving up 118 points to the Celtics, they give up 135 points to the Bulls. No defense and totally inconsistent play and that's no bull.

Saturday night in Milwaukee, more of the same. Then, on Monday, they take the Pistons to the wire before losing. So a quick review: They give supreme effort and split against the two best teams in the East and self-destruct against the lower echelon of the East.

They play hard against the best and seem to wilt against the rest. In an ironic way, that may help the Nuggets. After all, anybody who Denver plays in the postseason, by virtue of getting there, will be a good team. However, if Denver can't beat Chicago and Milwaukee, can they even get to the Playoffs this season?

Seattle stands in the way tonight. Sounds easy, right? Then again, weren't you thinking the same thing last Friday night when they took the floor in Chicago?

Have a great day and hope to see you Thursday.

"z"

You may have missed this floating bit of news last week.

It was easy to overlook since it started to develop the day after the Nuggets pulled out a huge victory over the Celtics and just prior to the flurry of Avalanche moves, in which the organization seemed to be partying like it was, not 1999, but 2001.

It may have slipped under your radar because it concerns college basketball, which around here this season, has been slightly more noticeable than those currently in the Witness Protection Program.

On that note, it's difficult to pick which issue seems like having longer odds: One local school making the NCAA Tournament or Colorado State coming up with one Mountain West Conference win. However, today is no day to pound on CSU----after all, opponents have been doing that pretty much all season long. Instead, it's time to examine the Rams most fierce rival.

After their sloppy and seemingly woeful 68-57 loss to Baylor, CU sits at 10-16 overall and 2-10 in the Big 12 Conference.

It is important to note as a point of comparision, that CU won SEVEN games TOTAL last season with Ricardo Patton, so this year, in the minds of many, they have already exceeded expectations. I disagree with that.

The reason they had no qualms about the less than amicable parting with Patton is because they always felt Jeff Bzdelik could do better. They are paying him $750,000 to make CU relevant in basketball. At this point, it looks like he is going to have to reach to earn every penny.

Granted, Bzdelik is coaching with Patton's players, but the notion that Bzdelik was going to make do in the interim by stressing defense and offensive discipline is just that----a notion.

Here are the facts. The Buffs are averaging only 61.8 points per game. They are averaging more than turnovers than they are forcing from their opponents, and the one that stands out the most-----they are getting crushed in the second half by the opposition.

With a quick calculation, it can be found that CU has been outscored by a total of one point in the first half this season. They are in the thick of most games going into the locker room. Coming out of the locker room, that's another story. I mean, if you are competitive in every game, how do you have just two wins in Big 12 Conference play? The answer? You wilt down the stretch or aren't mentally tough enough to survive. For now, Bzdelik can deal with the former. The latter, on the other hand, is inexcusable to any coach.

It is too early to be skeptical of Bzdelik, but the idea that his disciplned approach will work wonders----- is a hope at best ---and a fallacy at its worst. His previous system worked because his players at Air Force would DO ANYTHING he wanted and should be commended for their effort and grace in adjusting to one new coach after another.

At CU, the talent pool might be better than at Air Force, but, as a cohesive unit, it is worse and since college basketball is a team game, it should come as no surprise that the Buffs are a lower echelon program.

It is somewhat stated that Bzdelik has a prototypical player he wants in the program. Xavier Silas did not fit, so lost in the flurry of the Nuggets surviving and Peter Forsberg thriving, came news Silas was gone. The early reports seem to indicate that Bzdelik was sending a very strong message to the rest of his team by benching Silas.

Richard Roby, the team's best player, admitted that it was a "business" move by Bzdelik to show how serious he is about turning this program around. After all, if you're averaging 61.8 points per game, why would you release your third best scorer? Probably because he wasn't exerting the effort Bzdelik wanted. Admirable move by the coach, if not a little cold in its execution.

The day he was hired at CU, I thought this was an interesting move by Athletic Director Mike Bohn. Winning this Conference is ALMOST ALL about recruiting, something Bzdelik never had to worry as much about in Colorado Springs as he will in Boulder.

Since the Big 12 Conference began in 1996, the teams that have made the Final Four are Kansas (twice), Texas, Oklahoma State, and Oklahoma. All four of those teams had big star power that led them to college basketball's brightest stage.

Maybe I will be proven incorrect, but I just don't see Bzdelik going into a recruit's living room and wooing somebody the way Bill Self or Rick Barnes can. He just doesn't want to play the up-tempo style that other schools have chosen. That is a calculated decision, that in my estimation, doubles as a calculated risk.

Simply put, does a kid want to run up and down the floor or play a slow, defensive minded game that emphasizes offensive rigidity?

I know, that style won Bzdelik much praise and a high level of success at the Air Force Academy, but that was the Mountian West. This is the Big 12, that being said, there is no way around it, Bzdelik must come up BIG in recruiting, plain and simple or he'll just be the latest CU coach that promised everything and delivered nothing.

Have a great day, see you on Friday morning.

-"z"

Today, when you wake up, know that pro football coaches have already been awake for several hours while you were in bed dreaming about your favorite team winning the Super Bowl. After all, your coach is up all hours of the night to try to make your dream a reality.

The Denver Broncos have always been one of the most active teams in free agency. They are never afraid to roll the dice, especially with Mike Shanahan at the head of the casino table. Last year, Shanahan rolled the dice and came up no dice. His big acquisitions were Travis Henry and Daniel Graham. He traded for and then signed Dre' Bly to a contract extension. Let's just say the jury is out on all three------although, Henry's restructured contract perhaps shows Judge Shanahan has rendered his verdict on the troubled running back.

However, despite the tinkering the Broncos finished at 7-9 in 2006. It marked the second straight year the Broncos failed to reach the Playoffs and the losing mark was only the second in the Shanhan era. So, The Mastermind, under some self-imposed heat, needs to come up big in free agency to bring the team back to the elite level he took it to in years past.

The first order of free agent business for the franchise is the player that arguably has been the face of this franchise in the community----not to mention being pretty good on the field as well, as denoted by his Pro Bowl appearance this past season. Of course, we are speaking of John Lynch.

My overall impression is that even though Lynch has considered retirement, after 15 seasons of crunching hits and neck surgery, wants to continue playing. That logic may seem to fly in the face of the cold reality in that even Lynch himself has said his intentions to retire have never been stronger. Although, in the end, I just think his competitive spirit may not allow him to walk away from a brilliant career on the heels of a 7-9 season. Lynch has always had high standards and I think retiring now would leave him with the feeling of unfinished business.

That said, if he indeed does want to return, the question needs to be gently raised: Do the Broncos want him back? To me, this isn't as obvious as it seems. Lynch is a great player on the back end of his career. Has he reached the point of diminishing football returns? That is in the eye of the beholder, though I think no matter where you stand on this issue, most will agree that the Broncos, even with $16 million in free agent money available, can't spend too much of it on Lynch. Does that mean Lynch won't play for a lower salary? Only one person knows the answer to that question.

To me, irrespective of where you stand on this issue, the return of Lynch means the return to his numerous charitable and civic endeavors in Denver and the several people who have benefitted from his genorosity, would tell you, unlike his salary, you can't put a price on that.

I hope everyone has a great weekend. See you on Monday.

-"z"