Originally, I wanted to start a thread along the lines of Love Letter to MHR.  But I'm in a crappy mood.  Two reasons: 1) I have to wait 5 more nights until the Broncos and Raiders kick off on Monday night, and 2) I am literally at the point of nausea over coverage of the NFL by both the national and local media. Lately, it occurs to me (stole that from Jerry Garcia), that sportswriters and "analysts" are more terrified of being wrong than Donald Rumsfeld during the WMD fisaco.

Is it any surprise that sports personalities that are brash, brazen, and willing to really go out on a limb for what they believe are ushered into the national spotlight, SI's back page, or asked to host Jim Rome's radio show during one of Rome's 142 off-days a year? No. It's not.  It's because everybody else is the same.  Sure, maybe one guy is more analytical or funny than another guy, but when push comes to shove and these guys are asked to really talk about what they think in an upcoming game, they all crack and take the easy way out. 

My axe to grind isn't so much with the guys like Bill Williamson or Peter King (who aren't without fault).  They are "reporters".  Yes, they weave their opinion into their articles at times, but their articles are there to tell you; sales guy in a cube on the internet, tax attorney reading the paper, or marketing production gal on her iphone, what is happening in the NFL, either with your team or the whole league.  For the most part  (discounting King's NYJ/NYG/NE slant), they do that, and they do it with a great deal of accuracy.  Why, because they are reporting facts or insight.  That's it.  Feel free to read these "reporters'" articles with an open mind. Let these guys tell you what is happening, even if it's not terribly substantial (which it usually isn't to people like us, who read everything out there, and less than once a month are actually excited by something that we find in the middle of one sentence),  because that's what they're there for: to keep you (for the most part) in the know.  Until, that is, they are foced to offer you predictions of what they think is going to happen.  This is when these "reporters" become "idiots". 

Poor Peter King, he watches the Pats, Jets, and Giants, sometimes the Eagles, and because he works on the set of "NBC Football Night in WhatevertheHell that obnoxious Studio Show with Cool Graphics and Bob Costas for no good reason in America", he watches whatever that game is.  Then, CNNSI.com asks him who's gonna win the Broncos v. Oakland game.  He's guessing.  He's guessing like me guessing a buddy's wife's weight while my buddy's right there waiting for me to make a mistake and piss everyone off.  It's a lose-lose situation.  The only thing he can do to mitigate his ignorance is to really try and accurately guess what the score and winners will be based solely upon the small handful of Raiders and/or Broncos games he's seen over the past 24 months, consider the roster moves he's even heard of, and consider what coach likes or doesn't based upon who he's interviewed in the past.  His guess is boring, conservative, and typically, isn't too far off from the Vegas lines in the back of his Newark Star Ledger.  The problem with this is that readers like you and I are clamoring for any and all information about our teams. Once we get the information we gorge ourselves on it and then complain about the stomach ache.  Thing is, we know our stuff better than he does, and he knows it.

My axe to grind is with anyone considered an "analyst".  This constitutes anyone working for Scouts Inc., anyone who does "power rankings", and anyone on any website or TV show who is the "guru" (TSG, this does NOT include you) or who attempts to analyze all 16 games every week from any position other than simple gameplanning analysis (Jaworski, who's EDGE NFL Matchup is grossly underrated). They do what Peter King does when they have to guess on games and outcomes, but the difference is that deducting who will win and predicting who will do  what and when is actually their actual job.  They are NOT "reporters".  They are SUPPOSED to know that Denver has been using bunch sets and that Oakland can't pass the ball.  They're supposed to know that Denver's been bottling up the run in preseason on defense and setting up the run with the pass.  They're supposed to have better "analysis" than "The only known commodity is Cutler, but he will be without his best receiver".  Come ON!  Tell me that Cutler's gonna suck because Darrell Jackson's washed up or that Brandon Stokely is too fast for the Oakland safties.  Tell me that Denver will need to put a nickelback on field just to watch McFadden on passing downs because Boss Bailey's still hurt.  They're not supposed to say:

 "This will be a physical game as each team tries to enforce its will early. However, there are a lot of questions entering this game. We really don't know the identity of either offense and we don't know how they will perform now that the games count. Both of these defenses were awful versus the run a year ago, which is a concern considering both offenses want to run first and pass second. The only known commodity is Cutler, but he will be without his best receiver. Oakland will play it close to the vest with its own talented young QB and in a close, low-scoring game, Russell will limit mistakes and let his backs to the heavy lifting as the Raiders upset the Broncos."

-Gary Horton (Scouts Inc. - presented by ESPN.com)

That has about as much substance as a politician being asked to talk about a bond issue that he or she doesn't know much about.  Hell, at least Peter King says that Cutler's gonna throw 3 TD's, that's about all he says, but at least its better than this greyish-blue waffle that Gary Horton and Scoutsinc are passing off as analysis.

Re-read that quote.  There's no analysis in there.  This guy told me that:

1) The defenses were bad last year and because they were bad, it is a concern.  It is a concern because both offenses are run first offenses.  WHAT!!!!???  What the hell does that mean!?  

2) Oakland's not gonna throw much.  They like to run.  Wow.  Thanks.  Why,why is thier passing game so bad?

3) Cutler is the only known (known by YOU, Gary? or known to other people in your office?) commodity on the field.  Not any of the corners on either side?  None of the Tight Ends?   Hmm.

4) Cutler won't have his best receiver, and that's NOT great.

5) And finally,my favorite part: "We really don't know the identity of either offense and we don't know how they will perform".  Isn't it your JOB to know????

I can't believe I pay for Insider.

I know I pick on this one article a lot, but its indicative of just about every "Analyst" article I've read this week.  In the end, maybe I'm just venting, but if it wasn't for analysis here at MHR.com, I think I'd be on the ledge of my office building trying to jump off and land on Bernie Lincicome.  Really, I just want someone who KNOWS WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT to get a job as an "analyst" and then I'll be happier paying for cable and internet and the newspaper and all of the fricking bland sports magazines that I subscribe to.  Oh yeah, and don't tell me that these guys are writing to the "everyman" who doesn't know much about the game anyway, because the "everyman" isn't up at 12:47am on a Wednesday night reading ESPN Insider and Scout's Inc projections.  Even the fantasy football projections are rediculous.  Who believes this crap!

If you want to read projections of players or games, open up a blank MS Word document and write one down.  Save it.  Email it to yourself, and viola! you'll get to read something insightful right there in your inbox.

Good day and go Broncos.