Broncos owner Pat Bowlen got tired of watching these moments on the sideline.

After only two seasons, and nine wins, Josh McDaniels is done as head coach of the Denver Broncos. The former New England Patriots offensive coordinator, McDaniels won the first six games of his head coaching career, taking the league by storm in 2009, but limped to an historic collapse and an 8-8 finish. The Broncos are 3-9 this season after generating little offense against division rival Kansas City on Sunday in a 10-6 loss.

The firing doesn’t come as a complete surprise. After McDaniels sullied the franchise’s integrity in Spygate II, Broncos owner Pat Bowlen made it clear that McDaniels’ job was not particularly secure. That doesn’t make the firing any less sudden.

After McDaniels traded away the Broncos young core of talent including running back Peyton Hillis (962 yards rushing in 2010), tight end Tony Scheffler (292 yards receiving in 2010), cornerback Alphonso Smith (5 interceptions in 2010), quarterback Jay Cutler (2545 yards passing, 17 TDs in 2010), and wide receiver Brandon Marshall (693 yards receiving in 2010), not to mention his inability to get along with defensive coordinator Mike Nolan, who was perhaps the biggest reason for the Broncos fast start in 2009 and who has led the Dolphins to the number 11 ranked defense in the NFL (while the Broncos plummeted to 29), the Broncos have fallen from being a respected playoff contender to being a laughingstock bottom-dweller.

As with Eric Mangini, Nick Saban, Romeo Crennel, and Charlie Weis before him, McDaniels is cursed with his mentor Bill Belichick‘s bull-headedness and generally unpleasant way of doing things. In a town like Denver, the Patriot Way was never popular to begin with, but after six victories, even the most rabid fans could get used to the idea. After 17 losses, McDaniels lost his way and his job.

McDaniels, though, showed that he can be an effective NFL coach during a six-game stretch in 2009. He also continued to demonstrate his magic touch with offenses, turning reclamation projects like Kyle Orton and Brandon Lloyd into Pro Bowl talents. He never got the opportunity to do the same with Tim Tebow, which may doom the young quarterback’s career.

What doomed McDaniels may have also been his unwillingness to play Tebow. Not nearly as big a factor as his missteps with ethics and his personnel blunders, his expressed intent to keep playing Orton rather than play Tebow certainly didn’t help. The Broncos, unlike the Vikings and the Cowboys who also had their coaches fired midseason, don’t have much to play for. There’s no spark to ignite, no fanbase to excite. The fanbase is already incensed and just the firing of McDaniels is enough to keep Denver fans interested for the rest of the year. Also, there’s no Leslie Frazier or Jason Garrett to take the reins after McDaniels’ firing. Instead, 14-year NFL vet Eric Studesville will take over the Broncos for the remainder of the year. Perhaps the remainder of 2010 will turn into the Tebow Showcase for the Broncos, which could make or break his worth to the next head coach.

McDaniels will likely find himself nearly untouchable after his antics that, according to Todd Haley, got “people talking” about him. And not in a good way. Two years ago, the Broncos had their choice of coach and were the most attractive opening in an offseason that saw many. They chose the 32-year-old Josh McDaniels over Steve Spagnuolo (who has found success with Sam Bradford and the Rams), Rex Ryan, and the younger Raheem Morris, who is in the midst of a largely-successful rebuilding project in Tampa Bay.

It should not be forgotten, however, that McDaniels is still one of the brightest offensive minds in the NFL. Yes, he disassembled the number two offense in the NFL and made it worse. But what he was able to do with Orton and Lloyd shouldn’t be discounted. Perhaps he took on too much too early. Perhaps he just was plain wrong in his philosophy. Maybe it was all bad luck. In any case, McDaniels is still a gifted play-caller and is still regarded around the league as an offensive genius. Just maybe a little in over his stubborn head.

And that’s on the Broncos management. Broncos COO Joe Ellis and owner Pat Bowlen decided to search for a coach first and a general manager second, unlike their division rival, the Kansas City Chiefs. The Chiefs hired their GM, Scott Pioli, from New England, while the Broncos took a coach, then picked up Brian Xanders, formerly of the Falcons, as GM. The Chiefs are running away with the AFC West this season. After the demise of McDaniels, it’s likely that Bowlen will be looking for a stronger, more experienced hand to guide the franchise. Xanders may very well be on his way out as well in favor of a more powerful front office type who will select their own coach. Perhaps former rival Marty Schottenheimer in a Mike Holmgren-esque role? The “retired” Bill Parcells? Bill Cowher, who would be only too happy to do what McDaniels couldn’t?

Unfortunately, the Broncos are no longer the attractive destination for a coach that they were just two years ago, meaning all of the above may be out of the question. Instead of a team poised for success, they’re a rebuilding project that will take a few years. When McDaniels took the job, the Broncos were a couple wins away from the playoffs. Now, they’re a couple years away. Would they have been worse off with another year of McDaniels’ program? Or would it finally start to click in Year Three with Elvis Dumervil back on defense and Kyle Orton a year more experienced in his system? Pat Bowlen, who has receded from the public eye at age 66, didn’t want to risk another year lost.

McDaniels, despite his immense talent, likely won’t get any favors across the league where he’s not well-liked. Although he will probably get a chance again at some point in the future, McDaniels will be forced to go back to assistant coaching. Perhaps even to re-energize Bill Belichick’s offense again. I’ve always been a McDaniels fan, despite his demeanor and his attitude. He’s a football man, a good playcaller, and a passionate coach.

Like Mike Shanahan before him, McDaniels is the victim of too much power. The Broncos, like the Browns, Chiefs, and Dolphins before them, will likely be forced to invest more power in their front offices to rebuild their product on the field.

Peyton Manning and 2010 NFL receiving leader Austin Collie. Wait, what?

As the Green Bay Packers threw the last of several illegal forward passes on their desperation kickoff return attempt, the Chicago Bears celebrated the fact that they were now the last unbeaten team in the NFC. They’re now one of three undefeated teams left in the NFL, together with the Kansas City Chiefs (!) and the Pittsburgh Steelers.

You’re probably going to hear a lot of crazy claims today, such as the Bears being a Super Bowl contender, or that the 0-3 49ers’ season is completely beyond hope. People are going to tell  you that after three games, you have a pretty good sense of what each team is like.

I’m here to tell you that you shouldn’t believe a word of it.

After three games this year, we know that the Steelers are the class of the league. We know that Michael Vick is the best quarterback in the NFL. We know that this is the year Houston does some damage in the playoffs, and we know that Green Bay’s shot at a Super Bowl just flew out the window.

Right. Just like we knew that the Broncos and Giants were the class of the league this time last year, and we knew that the Titans were destined to go 0-16.

The Giants and Broncos, of course, collapsed down the stretch and each finished 8-8, despite starts of 5-0 and 6-0. The Titans, on the other hand, started 0-6 and rallied to an 8-2 finish.

The NFL, more than any other pro sports league, is chaotic and unpredictable. There are only 16 games for each team to play, so each game takes on much more meaning than it would in any other sport. In baseball, for instance, you can lose as many as 70 games and still be a virtual lock to make the playoffs. In football? Six losses is typically the maximum before you’re out.

But as crucial as losses are, wins are just as momentum-changing. Last week, we knew that Dallas was doomed to a horrible season because they were 0-2. Except then they came out and ambushed a Texans team that had barely won its first two games (and was still somehow seen as a juggernaut) and suddenly they look like worldbeaters. (I’ve written elsewhere about the media’s strange fixation with the Cowboys.) The Vikings win by two touchdowns over the lowly Lions, and suddenly the world is in love with Brett Favre again.

More than anywhere else, perceptions change in an instant in football.

We’re going to find out this week that maybe the Saints weren’t quite as good as we thought they were, even though they lost on a last-second field goal to a fantastic Falcons team. We’re going to hear a ridiculous amount about how Michael Vick is back, even though his (admittedly impressive) 4 TDs on Sunday came against the Jacksonville Jaguars, against whom I could probably rack up 28 points by myself. We’ll probably hear a dozen more ridiculous stories, all of which will be forgotten by next Monday.

The less you pay attention, the better. No one knows anything at this point. We probably won’t really know anything until at least half the season has been played. Yet the media has to write something, and so we latch on to compelling-sounding stories and themes.

Even crazier than judging a team by three games is judging an individual player. If you thought the Michael Vick hullabaloo was crazy, just wait until you hear which quarterback has the highest passer rating through three games.

Drew Brees? Nope, he’s just fifth.

Peyton Manning, maybe? Close, but he’s second.

No, it’s Chicago’s Jay Cutler, posting a stellar rating of 121.2 despite a miserable rating of 76.8 last year. (UPDATE: After last night’s performance, that rating dropped to 109.6. See what a difference a game makes?)

Not convinced three games isn’t enough to create a sensible evaluation? Then consider this: which player do you think leads the league in receiving yards?

Maybe someone like Larry Fitzgerald, right? Wrong – he’s not even in the top 40.

What about Chad Ochocinco, maybe? Closer, but he’s just 15^th with 237 yards and 20 receptions.

No, the correct answer is a stunner. Your receiving leader through three games is Indianapolis’ Austin Collie, who has racked up 27 catches, 359 yards, and 4 TDs already. But we should have expected this, right? After all, he was the consensus number 1 fantasy choice for wide receivers.

Wait, you mean he wasn’t?

I’m pretty sure no one other than Collie and his wife believed that he would be the NFL’s leader through three games. It’s okay. None of us should have, because it’s impossible to predict the future in football.

So don’t bother listening to anyone who tells you that they have the season all figured out after just three games. Anything can happen. Anything does happen in the NFL. So when Jacksonville upsets the Colts or Michael Vick throws for 7 interceptions against the Redskins, don’t be surprised.

Life in the NFL is crazy. Any given Sunday, and all that.

These guys know how to watch sports.

I was listening to Colin Cowherd this morning on the way to work.

I know, I know. It’s inexcusable. Just hear me out.

Cowherd was talking with producer Michael Weisman about a new product called FanVision, essentially a wireless handheld device that gives you control over what replays, highlights, or anything else you watch at the game. It’s not yet available everywhere, but you can use it in about a third of NFL stadiums starting this Sunday.

Sounds pretty cool, right?

It gets better. Fans with a FanVision will be able to watch games taking place in other stadiums. They will also have access to the NFL Red Zone Channel, too. Essentially, if the game they’re attending is boring, they can just tune out and watch something more interesting.

At the risk of sounding unpopular, I think this is a terrible idea.

I understand the draw of a product like this. The idea is that fans are reluctant to go to a game when they can have a superior viewing experience from home. I get that. I’m not real excited about the prospect of paying $40 for upper-level seats when I can sit on my big comfy couch for free and see slo-mo instant replays. The purpose of this product is to entice fans back the stadium by providing an experience more like what they can get at home.

And that’s fine, except that it ignores one major problem – watching a game in person is supposed to be different from watching it at home.

This shouldn’t need any explanation, but I’ll go ahead anyway. When I watch games at home, I get invested. I’m listening to a Rockies-Reds game on the radio right now, and when Troy Tulowitzki hit a three-run shot in the third, I yelled and clapped my hands. It’s exciting, for sure. But if I were at Coors Field, I would have leapt to my feet and screamed myself hoarse. An event that’s exciting at home can become legendary in person.

That’s not limited to big exciting, home run-type events, either. Consider this:  when Carlos Gonzalez banged out a single in the sixth, I pumped my fist and muttered, “Yessss.” Had I been at Coors? I would have been yelling, “YEEEAAAHHH!! CARGOOOOOO!!!!” And that’s not because I’m a nutcase obsessed with the Rockies, either. I bet there would have been twenty or so people around me yelling the same thing. We would have bumped fists. There would have been high fives.

Actually, I kind of wish I was there right now. Sigh.

But if we each had a FanVision, there’s a good chance the game wouldn’t be quite as exciting for us, for the simple fact that we wouldn’t be watching it, or at least not as closely. We’d yell, sure, but we’d frantically be checking out handsets for every possible replay angle.  We probably wouldn’t high five as much – after all, we’d have expensive ($200!) electronics in our hands.

It sure doesn’t help that you can check fantasy stats on this thing, either. Suddenly, we’re all checking to see how how CarGo’s single affects our fantasy leagues.

I know people said these same sorts of things when JumboTrons started making their way into stadiums and arenas. I understand that. But that doesn’t mean I have to like it.

I feel like if you’re attending a game in person, you ought to watch the game. Don’t worry so much about your fantasy scores. Don’t stress about finding the perfect angle for the replay. Watch the game. Be social. Contribute to your team’s home field advantage.

But then, that’s a problem most pro sports teams face. Stadiums and arenas are catered more toward attracting business clients and celebrities than fans. Fans likely to scream and cheer for every little thing are being priced out in favor of luxury suites. Home field doesn’t mean what it used to.

So, in keeping with the theme of this blog, I’m going to offer some unsolicited advice about how to watch sports. Watch them. If things like FanVision become commonplace, sporting events will become less and less entertaining to watch.

That puts guys like me out of a job. No one wants that. Least of all me.

Analyzing the media is not something we typically do around here at How To Watch Sports. We analyze sports. That’s what we do.

But every once in a while something crops up in sports media that I think deserves critique. As a sportswriter I’m a part of the media, so I don’t consider myself exempt from any such criticism. I’d like to provide a couple examples of the specific examples of what I’ve noticed, and then address its ethical implications as a journalist.

First example. While driving to the office one day recently, I was listening to a morning sports talk show that I don’t often hear. The topic, a hot one seeing as I live in Phoenix, was former Arizona Cardinals quarterback Matt Leinart.

Leinart had just taken some flak from Trent Dilfer. Dilfer, appearing on The Herd with Colin Cowherd, had dismissed the Cardinals as a contender in the NFC West race because of Leinart’s shortcomings (this was while he was still with the team—apparently Coach Ken Whisenhunt agreed). Specifically, Dilfer asserted that Leinart doesn’t have the leadership presence or command in the huddle—the “it” qualities—to be a good quarterback.

This radio host, in turn, was leveling fireball after fireball at Dilfer—not refuting his claims about Leinart, but instead attacking Dilfer’s career as a player. He insisted that Dilfer’s criticisms were hypocritical, as Dilfer himself hadn’t had those qualities himself as a player.

Second example. This time it was a different radio show, though with a similar situation. This time the topic was former All-Star pitcher Rob Dibble, and his recent criticism of Stephen Strasburg and his injuries (before it was revealed that Strasburg would have surgery and miss the rest of the season). Dibble suggested that sometimes you have to “suck it up” and play through the pain, instead of sitting out. Strasburg, to give context, had just left a game after 56 pitches because of pain in his forearm.

The broadcaster in question had a few choice words for Dibble. He let Dibble have it for criticizing Strasburg while being plagued with injuries during his own playing career—he pitched in only seven different seasons and sat out two entire seasons because of injuries or surgery. (Side note: it appears that the folks at Deadspin offered the same criticism, and likely originated it.)

Third and final example. I’m not citing a specific incident here, as I saw this particular example come up several times. In this case it was shells fired at TNT analyst (and former NBA player) Charles Barkley for criticizing LeBron James’s decision to leave Cleveland and join the Miami Heat—when Sir Charles never won a title himself.

The question, then, is this: is it hypocrisy for a player-turned-analyst to require current players to do what they didn’t?

I asked around and got mixed opinions, but my instinct is that no, it’s not. It’s their job. Playing and analysis use different skill sets, and many analysts didn’t play professionally at all. The implication is that it’s okay for Steve Young to pick apart Leinart’s intangibles, but not Trent Dilfer—and if both are doing so in the chair of a professional sports analyst, then I disagree.

To bag on Dilfer, Dibble, or Barkley in these situations is probably making light of what they learned from substantial careers in the pros. My hunch is that 13 years in the NFL, working with five different teams’ systems and winning a Super Bowl as a starter (all items on Dilfer’s resumé) give insight into the position that a couple decades of watching a lot of football—even with a critical eye—can’t touch.

Further, players with clear weaknesses may actually be the most qualified to comment on that particular skill. Suppose Ron Artest retired, became an analyst (wouldn’t that be the day? I’d watch), and vocally criticized a player for getting into fights and generally being a distraction. You can call him a hypocrite, or you can figure that Ron-Ron knows a lot more about that topic than someone who never threw a punch.

It’s not a perfect science. If Shaquille O’Neal retired and became the newest ESPN guy (man, I’d watch that too), I might hold it against him if he criticized a big man for not making his free throws. And despite my self-righteousness, I’d say we do have to draw a line in quality of players, too—listening to Trent Dilfer is still several cuts above listening to Ryan Leaf.

That said, if Leaf was picked up by the mothership or a major network, you’d have to assume that he’d have at least some decent chops as an analyst. The media outlet would actually add credibility to a mediocre player.

We all get an opinion, though, and even local radio personalities get to say what they think (and got their job via some measure of talent and/or insight). And I do, too. I just wrote about 800 words criticizing members of the media, and I know I wouldn’t be happy if it was leveled my way.

It’s food for thought. It’s a reminder to think before we wage war on someone who disagrees with us, and a suggestion that name-calling isn’t a good replacement for properly refuting an argument.

And if I’m wrong, maybe somebody will flame me out for it.

Matt Leinart lost his job as the Arizona Cardinals’ starting quarterback to Kurt Warner a couple of different times. This year it’s Matt Leinart’s team, and there’s no future Hall-of-Famer breathing down his neck, threatening to take his spot.

This is very, very bad news for the Cardinals.

It’s only the preseason, but coach Ken Whisenhunt and the Cards are getting a major reality check. With Warner gone, their offense lacks necessary potency. It looks like they’re going to struggle to move the ball all season with Leinart running the show.

In defense of Matt Leinart, he’s actually looked decent in his (very) limited preseason action. He played three series in each of their two games (the first against the Houston Texans, the second against the Tennessee Titans), generally playing against the first-team defense. Across the two games he went 10/13, for a solid QB rating of 90.9.

Unfortunately, it didn’t yield any results. He didn’t throw any interceptions, but nor did he have any touchdowns—and the best outcome of a drive was a missed 50-yard field goal by Jay Feely. Each of his three drives in yesterday’s game against Tennessee went three-and-out.

Conspicuously missing from Leinart’s game thus far is the leadership that must come from a franchise quarterback. That’s why we can look at his rather-good preseason numbers and still call his performance a failure: because at no point did he have good numbers when it mattered. Completing passes from the safety of your own 20-yard line is important, but Leinart’s inability to put the team in position to score is worrisome—even if it’s just in six preseason drives. The Cardinals are used to, in Warner, having a signal-caller who could take the team on his back and will them into the end zone. Matt Leinart has never been that guy in the NFL.

The Cardinals have been hoping since taking him tenth in the 2006 draft that Leinart would become that guy. So far his real-game performances have lacked the shine they had at USC—he hasn’t thrown 100 passes in a season since 2007, when his career TD and INT numbers totalled 13 and 16, respectively.

But that was the young Matt Leinart. It’s hard to believe that it’s already his fifth year in the league, but in that time he’s gotten everything a young quarterback could ask for: some early playing experience plus the ability to learn on the bench behind one of the best. If he’s going to come to fruition, it needs to be now—both for the Cardinals and for his own career.

Ready to take over the reins should Leinart falter is one-time Pro Bowler Derek Anderson. It seems appropriate to refer to him as a one-time Pro Bowler, because here’s a guy who literally had one good season and has been completely unable to replicate it. His 2007 sophomore campaign boasted 29 TDs to only 19 INTs en route to a 82.5 passer rating for the season.

It’s been ugly since. His rating dropped to 66.5 in 2008, and then a basement-dwelling 42.1 last season.

The Cardinals are essentially going with Leinart as a gesture of loyalty here, as Anderson has at least once proven he can play the position even if he hasn’t done in well in a couple years. The bad news is that Anderson and Leinart have a little too much in common; namely, the propensity to be a disappointment.

Anderson has also been underwhelming the preseason games. He went a combined 24/41 against the Texans and Titans, with one touchdown and two picks (all of which came against Houston). Unfortuntely for the Cardinals, it seems like his best years (or year, rather) are behind him.

Faring somewhat better in the exhibition action have been Arizona’s two rookie quarterbacks, John Skelton out of Fordham and Max Hall out of BYU. Skelton went 6/7 for 84 yards against the Texans and passed for a touchdown, while Hall went 7/15 for 101 yards and a touchdown of his own against the Titans.

The rookies tended to play against the second- and third-string defenses, but the Cardinals must have been pleased with the performance. Skelton has a strong arm and raw talent. Hall jumped right into the Cardinals’ system and has been mentioned by coaches as being the most accurate of all four quarterbacks on the roster.

But ultimately the quarterback battle, if it called be called one, is between Leinart and Anderson. The winner gets a prize not everyone would want: the helm of the post-Warner Cardinals offense that is transitioning from a pass-first, 28th-in-total-rushing aerial assault into an old school, rush-first power game. They’ll find themselves in a dichotomy of their own making: a team whose best talent is in the receiver corps (Larry Fitzgerald, Steve Breaston, Early Doucet), but who is forced to rely on the running game because of the quarterbacks’ own shortcomings.

And do the Cardinals win either way? While it doesn’t seem likely now, they do have a shot.

The Cardinals’ hopes of a third-straight division title, at this point, rest on Matt Leinart growing into his leadership role and ceasing to be a liability under center. He has support from the one-two rushing punch of Beanie Wells and Tim Hightower, who look like they’ll get plenty of touches this season to keep the ball out of Leinart’s hands. If the Cardinals can establish a run-heavy offense that then allows Leinart to reach his receivers after play-action, then they’ll put points on the board.

If they have to rely on Leinart to make plays, then they might not.

We’ll see. If he can’t carry the load, at least they have another mediocre quarterback to replace him.

In 1996, the Dallas Cowboys had just finished winning their third Super Bowl in four years. They had established themselves as the dominant team of the 1990s, and perhaps the greatest franchise of all time. The trio of Troy Aikman, Emmitt Smith, and Michael Irvin was the most feared in the league. The Cowboys already had five championships under their belts, and with the team they had, three or four more wouldn’t have been out of the question.

Except that Smith suffered a scary injury in Week 1 that left him temporarily paralyzed and Michael Irvin was suspended for the first five weeks of the season. Suddenly, a team that had averaged 12 wins a season over the last five years was scrambling to win 10 games. The team of the decade hasn’t been the same since, only winning two playoff games from 1996-2009.

But you wouldn’t know that to read the news. For whatever reason, the Cowboys are one of those teams that breeds eternal optimism in pundits, just like the Chicago Cubs and the New York Mets. No matter how many games they lose, it only takes a single win before you start seeing headlines like “Here Come The Cowboys!”

Try and imagine how many stories you’ve read over the last 14 years telling you that this year, finally, will be The Year for the Cowboys. (My personal count: 117,000.) Now compare that with Dallas’ average record over those 14 seasons: 8-8.

Like it or not, the 1992-1995 Cowboys aren’t coming through that door. As much as we’d like to see them beat the world again, the Cowboys are what they are at this point: mediocre.

Now, fast forward with me 12 years.

Tiger Woods has just played one of the most remarkable tournaments of his career. Despite playing on a badly injured knee, he fought his way through nearly 100 holes of golf over five days to edge Rocco Mediate in the 2008 U.S. Open to win his 14^th major championship. No one could question that he was the greatest golfer in the world. Jack Nicklaus’ record of 18 majors seemed a foregone conclusion at this point. He would likely break the record in three or four years, tops.

Except his knee injury was more serious than any of us realized, causing him to skip the British Open and PGA Championship in 2008. Since coming back, he hasn’t been the same Tiger, only coming as close as second as he choked away the 2009 PGA Championship.

But, again, you wouldn’t know that to read the news. Even though Tiger has averaged just a tenth place finish in the majors he’s finished (he missed the cut in the 2009 British Open), it only takes a single birdie before you start seeing headlines like “Here Comes Tiger!”

Just like the Dallas Cowboys, we desperately want to see Tiger be great again (or at least the media does). No matter how much he struggles, we still expect Tiger to win a major or two each year. And why shouldn’t we? After all, we’ve seen Tiger obliterate his competition in the past. We still have memories of him winning by a mind-blowing 15 strokes in the 2000 U.S. Open. We still have memories of the Tiger Slam, when he held all four major titles at once. We still have memories of him mowing through the PGA, when it seemed like no one could possibly challenge him.

And that’s all good and well, but sooner or later, we’re going to have to come to terms with the fact that those memories are becoming increasingly distant. 2000 Tiger isn’t walking through that door anymore. Instead, we’re left with a man who is the golf equivalent of the 1996-2009 Cowboys. We know he has the talent, and we remember all the amazing things he did, but he’s just not the same anymore.

So maybe we ought to cool it just a bit with all of the hype. Maybe we ought not to get too carried away when Tiger finishes -1 after the first day of a tournament, just like we shouldn’t get too carried away when the Cowboys start a season 3-1. Maybe we ought to forget about what we’d like to believe and focus on what we’re actually seeing – slightly above-average competitors.

I know all of this. So do you. It makes perfect sense when you read it.

But the next time Tiger gets off to a start that’s even slightly above average, I know I’m going to find myself paying attention, and I’m sure you will, too. We just can’t help ourselves.

Joe Montana to Jerry Rice. 80-yard touchdown.

Joe Montana to… oh, come on. You remember as well as I do.

Punter Jeff Feagles re-signed with the New York Giants Thursday, meaning there’s still one active player left from the original Tecmo Super Bowl, released on NES in 1991. Feagles, 44 years old now, was in his third NFL season when the game came out.

I was eight.

Unless you’re very old or very young, you probably already know that Tecmo Super Bowl was an important part of plenty of young boys’ growing up. It regularly gets rated among the top 100 video games of all time, including as high as #22 by Jadedgamer.net. If I made a personal list, I have to imagine Tecmo Super Bowl would make my top 10.

It wasn’t the first football video game to use real NFL rosters (and neither was its predecessor, Tecmo Bowl), but the real team and player names sure helped to capture the imagination of every Hammer-pants-wearing 90′s boy.

The Tecmo franchise also pioneered the concept of a single player dominating the other team’s eleven, to the extent that he needs no teammates. Bo Jackson can score every time he touches the ball, for example. Lawrence Taylor can, and should, get 15+ sacks a game. And if you’re playing as Montana’s San Francisco 49ers or Dan Marino’s Miami Dolphins, you should be ashamed of anything less than 400 yards passing per game. You might not get the win with such a poor performance.

As recently as last season, there were three players still in the NFL from Tecmo Super Bowl. Junior Seau was active for seven games as a reserve linebacker for the New England Patriots, and placekicker John Carney miraculously got a Super Bowl ring with the New Orleans Saints—his first and only in a 20+ year career.

There’s still a chance one of these guys will re-sign and play this coming year (Seau seems to come out of the woodwork whenever Bill Belichick needs LB depth), but as of now it’s just Feagles.

Feagles also holds the NFL’s record, incidentally, for consecutive games played. If you thought that record was held by Brett Favre, you were both close and way, way off. Favre is second, having played in 287 straight games. Feagles has played in an unbelievable 352 consecutive games without missing a single one—literally every NFL game possible since Ronald Reagan was president.

On top of being Tecmo’s last man standing, Feagles is the only active player to have played in the NFL in the 1980′s. If Carney signs again, he’ll be the only other. Carney would also trump Feagles as the NFL’s oldest player, being almost two full years older—he turns a mind-bending 47 years old later this month.

It’s amazing. Feagles’ longevity—this will be his 23rd season—is remarkable, even for a punter. The boys that originally played Tecmo have pubesced, grown up, gone to college, gotten married, and now have children of their own.

At least I do.

Jeff Feagles, I salute you. Keep on puntin’.

It's like a man-crush buffet.

The man-crush.

We all have one—it’s okay.

Developing and maintaining the man-crush is an art form—not unlike turning clay into a sculpture or a blank canvas into a masterpiece.

Some may showcase their man-crushes by declaring allegiance to “Team Edward” or “Team Jacob.” Others may celebrate the release of any George Clooney, Matt Damon or Brad Pitt movie—not too mention the three instances in which all three actors appeared in the same “Ocean’s” movies.

Some men are comfortable admitting their celebrity man-crushes, while others continue to remain in the man-crush closet.

Many man-crushes are those on the silver-screen, but for a large majority of men, their man-crushes may come in the form of a professional athlete. So please, let’s put aside all egos and bashfulness as we discuss the five steps of picking a professional athlete man-crush.

1. You only get one

Sorry, but multiple man-crushes are not permitted. You get one man-crush across the professional sports board. More than one man-crush can lead to confusion and conflicts of interest.

This intensifies the decision making process and requires deep thought and effort when choosing. Say you are an Atlanta Hawks fan and you choose Joe Johnson as your man-crush (with his 21.5 points per game and electrifying skills, not a bad choice). If you then decide to choose Atlanta Falcons quarterback Matt Ryan as another man-crush, you run the risk of having to decide between the two on certain days of the year–due to the crossover of the NFL and the NBA seasons.

And just like women, you can’t be having to decide between two man-crushes.

Keep it to one.

2. He must be from your favorite team

What’s the point of having a man-crush from another team? An obvious part of the man-crush is rooting for the athlete to succeed.

Along with being on your favorite team, he must also be a current player on your team. If I’m a Green Bay Packers fan and my man-crush was at one time Brett Favre, as of three years ago, I would be required to change my man-crush.

A Yankees fan can not utilize any Red Sox player as a man-crush candidate. Likewise, if you are not a fan of the Cavs or the Lakers, you can not play the man-crush card on LeBron or Kobe.

Say I were a Utah Jazz fan (I am); my obvious man-crush choice would be All-Star Deron Williams (he is). Williams is averaging 18.6 points and 10.3 assists per game, and has been the face of a Jazz franchise that currently sits just 4.5 games back of the West number one seed.

But by utilizing the man-crush card on Williams, I would then be prohibited from using it on other players on other teams—sorry Chris Paul.

In journalism, reporters look to avoid topics and events that may cause a conflict of interest. Likewise, in choosing a man-crush, you must avoid conflicts of interest.

Keep it to your team.

3. He must be good

Only one of the players in this picture is a legitimate man-crush candidate.

Don’t waste your man-crush on someone who can’t hit the broad side of a barn. There’s a reason Gary Coleman is nobody’s celebrity man-crush.

“But he’s so nice.”

So what? Nice doesn’t equate a worthy man-crush. Niceness can certainly enhance a man-crush’s appeal, but it should in no wise be the foundation.

Your man-crush must possess all-star or near all-star statistics and capabilities. Nothing against Josh McRoberts of the Indiana Pacers, but 3.7 points, 2.4 rebounds, and 0.8 assists in just over 10 minutes per game aren’t exactly man-crush-worthy statistics.

Your man-crush must be at least a viable part of the team.

4. Don’t be shy

Be proud of your man-crush. Don’t shy away from the chance to let others know your feelings. Feel free to let your sensitivity towards your man-crush be a major part in your attempts to pick up women.

Buy the merchandise and cheer louder when your player jukes a defender and drives the lane for a dunk. Go crazy when your man-crush leaves a linebacker in the dust en route to a touchdown. Let loose when your guy strikes out the side or leaves the yard in a June regular season MLB game.

The Jazz’s Kyle Korver may seem like more of a ladies’ man-crush. But don’t think there aren’t men who employ Korver as their man-crush. Don’t hesitate to wear his jersey and taunt opposing players with it after a long-range three.

Stay proud.

5. Don’t be creepy

That said, there’s a fine line between not being shy and being creepy. Stay away from creeping out those close to you or the athlete himself when cheering and supporting your man-crush. A jersey or a player t-shirt is completely acceptable. But longing to have their actual jersey or used sweatbands crosses over to the creepy side.

Just because Kevin Durant has Oklahoma City in the playoff mix and dropped in 29 points in the Thunder’s recent win over the New Orleans Hornets doesn’t mean you can hack his Blackberry or poke him on Facebook. Play it cool. Be proud, but don’t be creepy.

Keep it friendly.

There’s the rules. By adhering to these suggestions and steps, you won’t have to find your man-crush. He’ll find you.

So, get to work on developing the craft, Michelangelo.

Now that Super Bowl XLIV is officially in the books, the first decade of the 2000s is over and done with. Nice round years tend to make people want to compile “best of” lists, so let’s go ahead and look back on the last decade of the NFL. There are really only two choices for team of the decade, but the top five teams make for an interesting debate.

I could have delved into complicated and detailed statistics to come up with this list, but I thought it would be easier to stick with simple figures. I focused on average wins per season, Super Bowl wins and appearances, and playoff appearances. I also took into account division titles and MVP winners. It probably won’t reflect your thoughts and opinions perfectly, but bear in mind that anything like this has to be subjective. With that in mind, let’s take a look at the top five. (I doubt many people will be interested in a complete ranking, and there’s not a lot of difference between #24 Kansas City and #25 Washington anyway.)

5. Baltimore Ravens (average wins per season: 9.2, 1 Super Bowl win (2000), 1 Super Bowl appearance, 6 playoff appearances)

The Ravens found themselves in a virtual tie with the Green Bay Packers and the Denver Broncos in terms of average wins per season, but their Super Bowl win put them up in the top five. The Ravens’ commitment to defense keeps them in the contending teams discussion year after year. But the Ravens aren’t just about defense. QB Joe Flacco and RB Ray Rice do their part to keep the offense moving.  If those two live up to their potential and the defense holds up, they could find themselves at the top of next decade’s list, too.

4. Philadelphia Eagles (average wins per season: 10.3, no Super Bowl wins, 1 Super Bowl appearance, 8 playoff appearances)

Philadelphia doesn’t have any championship rings, as any devoted Giants fan will tell you, but they’ve been so consistently good this decade that it’s impossible to keep them off this list. They’ve only had one losing season in the last ten years (6-10 in 2005) and have won the divisional title in the vicious NFC East five times. For comparison, only two teams in the entire NFL have won more divisional championships over the last decade, and they occupy spots 1 and 2 on this list. They also played in the NFC Championship Game a staggering five times, more than twice as many as any other NFC team (New York, Minnesota, Carolina, and New Orleans all have two appearances). A tendency to lose in big games certainly hurts them here, but you have to admire the consistency they’ve shown in at least repeatedly getting there.

3. Pittsburgh Steelers (average wins per season: 10.3, 2 Super Bowl wins (2005, 2008), 2 Super Bowl appearances, 6 playoff appearances)

The Steelers won the same amount of games on average as their Pennsylvanian brethren, but two championships easily propel them to the top three. There’s no question Ben Roethlisberger’s appearance in 2004 ushered in a new era (two titles and no losing seasons since), but it’s not as though they were struggling beforehand. Pittsburgh has been a model of consistency ever since the NFL’s creation. After all, there’s only one franchise that has a ring for the thumb. Their two titles this decade make them a tempting choice to put in the top two, but I feel like these last two teams were a cut above everyone else. Still, two titles are nothing to be ashamed of, and the future certainly looks bright in Pittsburgh.

2. Indianapolis Colts (average wins per season: 11.5, 1 Super Bowl wins (2006), 2 Super Bowl appearances, 9 playoff appearances, 4 MVP awards (Peyton Manning, 2003, 2004, 2008, 2009))

Here’s a fun exercise. Try to think of the last time the Colts failed to qualify for the playoffs.

Give up? It was 2001, when they went just 6-10 and inspired Jim Mora’s famous “playoffs?!?” rant. Mora was fired after that season, the Colts hired Tony Dungy, and they haven’t won fewer than 10 games since. Incredibly, they’ve won at least 12 games every season since 2003, and since that time, they’ve been in a rivalry with the New England Patriots for supremacy in the AFC. The Patriots initially had the upper hand, but lately the tables have turned in favor of the Colts. In fact, had the Colts won Super Bowl XLIV, I was prepared to list them above the Patriots. It might seem crazy, but the Colts have remained an elite team for longer than the Patriots, despite the championship gap. Peyton Manning’s incredible four MVP awards (more than Brett Favre, Jim Brown, or Johnny Unitas) can’t be ignored, either. But Manning’s interception to Tracy Porter sealed it, in my mind. The Colts are a great team. In fact, they’re an excellent team. But they’ve shown a lack of ability to get it done in big games, and so they’ll have to settle for number two here.

1. New England Patriots (average wins per season: 11.2, 3 Super Bowl wins (2001, 2003, 2004), 4 Super Bowl appearances, 7 playoff appearances, 1 MVP award (Tom Brady, 2007))

The numbers don’t lie. Since Tom Brady took over after Drew Bledsoe’s injury in 2001, the Patriots have won three Super Bowls, at least 10 games every season (except for 2002, when they went 9-7), and came inches from winning a fourth championship and a 19-0 season. For the most part, the glory days for this franchise are behind them, since Brady isn’t quite the same as he was before Bernard Pollard knocked him out for the 2008 season, but that doesn’t diminish how incredible those glory days were. At one point, New England had won 21 consecutive games, including a Super Bowl. And at their peak, no one was more intimidating than the Patriots. The Colts consistently inspire fear into their opponents’ hearts. But the Patriots inspired terror. Put it this way. Over the last ten years, the Patriots have had three seasons in which they won at least 14 games (14-2 in 2003 and 2004 and 16-0 in 2007). The rest of the NFL combines for five (2001 Rams, 2004 Steelers, 2006 Chargers, and 2005 and 2009 Colts). The Colts have been consistently great, but for a few years, the Patriots were virtually invincible. It’s a matter of personal opinion which you prefer, but as for me, I’d take the three rings and the 16-0 season any day of the week. Say what you will about New England’s future, but the 2000s were the decade of the Patriots.

It’s an interesting question. While the New Orleans Saints played a tremendous game, there wasn’t really one person that stood out above the rest. Should it be Marques Colston, who led the Saints with 7 receptions for 83 yards? Or should it be Drew Brees, who posted a QB rating of 114.5 while throwing for 288 yards? And what about Tracy Porter, who came up with a game-changing interception for the second straight game?

These are all worthy choices, and I think Brees certainly deserved to win the award. But I think there was someone more deserving. Five people, actually.

Why not give the award to the New Orleans offensive line?

Obviously, the Super Bowl MVP award is only given to a single person, so the entire offensive line wouldn’t be able to split the honor. Usually, when there isn’t a clearly deserving player, the award is given to the quarterback. But I think the offensive linemen were the most deserving of anyone on the field.

Sure, you know Drew Brees, but can you name any of the other guys in this picture?

Think about it. Brees was magnificent, completing 32 of 39 passes to tie the Super Bowl record for completions (also held by one Tom Brady, who isn’t too bad a quarterback himself). But how many times do you remember Brees being hit, or even hurried?

The answer? Just one, when Dwight Freeney muscled his way through the line to sack Brees early in the second quarter. Other than that, Brees had all the time he needed to throw the ball.

The New Orleans line, most of whom I doubt many fans could name, were the single biggest reason Brees looked so good tonight. And yet they won’t receive much, if any credit at all.

That’s typical of the position, though. In the history of the Super Bowl, exactly zero offensive lineman have been honored as the MVP. Meanwhile, six wide receivers, seven running backs, and a whopping 23 quarterbacks have received the award.

It’s easy to overlook the offensive line. They rarely make exciting, highlight reel-type plays. Instead, they do all the grunt work. They block the defensive line and create a pocket for the quarterback to work in. They push the defense aside to create a hole for the running back to run through. And they handle any pass rushers that try to disrupt the quarterback. Yawn.

It’s not often that an offensive lineman is chosen high in the NFL Draft. While there are exceptions, such as Miami Dolphins OT Jake Long, most high draft picks are quarterbacks, running backs, and wide receivers. Teams want their high-profile picks to become faces of the franchise. Picks like John Elway, Peyton Manning, and Matt Ryan.

Except too often you get stuck with high picks like Tim Couch, Joey Harrington, and Akili Smith. These players excelled in college, but suddenly struggled when they reached the pros. Certainly some of that has to be because they had difficulty adjusting to the higher level of play, but it’s also worth pointing out that the Cleveland Browns, Detroit Lions, and Cincinnati Bengals all had terrible offensive lines when they were drafted. It’s hard to pass effectively when defenders are rushing through the tackle nearly every play.

That’s not to say that Drew Brees isn’t a spectacular quarterback. He certainly is, and he showed it on football’s biggest stage. But it’s worth pointing out that as good as he is, his offensive line made him look even better.

So here’s to you, Jermon Bushrod, Carl Nicks, Jonathan Goodwin, Jahri Evans, and Jonathan Stinchcomb. You may not have won the award last night, but in my book, you’re all MVPs.