Simmons on the Broncos Week 1 win

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmonsnflpicks/090918

After you pick a 2009 sleeper, you want them to win in Week 1 like this …

"Orton in the gun, Buckhalter right next to him. Orton, pumps again, to the sidelinnnnnnne … batted up, OH MY!!!!!!! STOKLEY!!!!!! DOWN THE SIDELINE!!!!!!!!!! CAN HE CATCH HIM? STOKLEY!!!!!!!!!!!! WOWWWWWWWWW!!!!! (pause) TOUCHDOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DENVER!!!!!!!!! UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!!!!!! OH MY GOOD-NESS WHAT A PLAY!!!!!!!!!!!!! EIGHTY-SEVEN YARDS!!!!!!!!!!! (Long pause) WHOOOOOOOOA!!!!!!!!!!!!"

(That was Gus Johnson's call of the miracle Stokley play. Obviously. By the way, I'd like to thank Stokley for helping me realize a lifelong dream: seeing a real NFL player try the "Madden" strategy of not running into the end zone right away to kill a few extra seconds of clock. I was more excited about that than the play itself.)

Obama Reaches Out?

Note: I am not a political person, by any stretch of the imagination. I am registered to vote, but I am not a member of any party--that designation on my card reads "NOP", for "no party." My old Maricopa voting card read "PND", which means "party not designated," but I think what they really meant was "party pending." In any event, it's still pending.

That said, please do not read this as dripping, falling-in-love support for President Obama. I studied history and I grew accustomed to looking at things past from an outside perspective. In many ways, I look at current events in that same way. It's a bad habit; I should know better that occurrances in D.C. do affect me (and I already know this, if for no other reason, because I'm receiving an incentive for being a first-time home buyer). So I'm examining this situation from an odd perspective and appreciating it for what it is, without taking a lot of other things into account. I'm dissecting someone who is a historical figure by default (all presidents are), even though he's still around to change who he is, his legacy, his policies, etc. It's not a done deal. And yet, I'm sort of writing about it like it is.

In any event, keep that in mind. Not an Obama lover. Not a hater either, just making an observation (that you're free to disagree with, of course).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090326/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_online

I'm not an Obama fan, necessarily. I don't think the nation is doomed as a result of his election, either. Rather, I'm waiting to see if he is worth the hype--or at least part of it (I don't think anyone can actually live up to the hype he receives).

That was a negative start, but keep reading. Juxtapose that with what I'm about to say.

The day after Obama was elected, I told my wife and several others who asked my opinion: for Obama to be as successful as everyone wants him to be, he has to go in there like FDR, in the first 100 days, and lay down dramatic new policy that actually reshapes the nation in a positive way (whether FDR actually did that, I'm not going to argue with you about that right now).

In at least one way, Obama has followed FDR's footsteps. FDR started the "fireside chats" where he addressed the nation on the radio on a regular basis. This was unprecedented, in part because the technology was new, in part because no one prior tried to use the technology in that way. Note that using the radio was not new; it was the President connecting with the people via the radio that was the bright and shiny idea.

Obama has done the same thing with the Internet. Rather than merely take questions from media and other officials, Obama took questions from the general public (perhaps that's giving Internet surfers too much credit on several levels, just go with it for now). He even briefly discussed legalizing marijuana. His first response wondered about the Internet crowd in general (see?), then he responded seriously by saying he doesn't think that's a good plan to help the economy.

This isn't the first time Obama has tried to "connect" with the people at large. The night before the election, both Obama and McCain were interviewed by Chris Berman of SportsCenter fame. McCain talked about steroids in professional sports and getting rid of them, which is a fine but tired answer. Obama said he wanted a playoff in college football. That's not a new idea, but it is a fun idea. It's controversial and heatedly discussed, unlike steroids, which is not controversial (generally we either don't care or we want them gone; few are arguing for more steroid use) and while passionate, not heated (again, no real argument for keeping steroid use).

(Moreover, both Katie and I noted that the steroid argument probably appeals to liberals and Democrats who seek equality (even in sports), while the college football argument was designed to endear Southerners to Obama. So these arguments were likely last-minute efforts to sway undecided voters. But still.)

Additionally, if you didn't know already, Obama filled out a March Madness bracket... and showed it to the rest of us (forgive me for not linking it). Is that dangerous because of it's ties to gambling? Maybe, but everyone fills out a bracket, right? (OK, not everyone; I didn't this year, but I usually do even though I don't follow college basketball--everyone likes to get lucky and pick the right "thing", and more points for lucky picks than educated ones.)

So here's what I'm saying: Is Obama going to sweep in like FDR's New Deal? Probably not. Is he a perfect leader. By no means. But he's already started a legacy in that he's made steps to connect with a more diverse group of people, in several ways. Is he (still) an elitist? Maybe, and those questions will never fade with Columbia and Harvard on his resume. But if that's the case, he's at least a smart elitist. Maybe it's a facade, but it's one that I don't mind for the moment, because people still have the opportunity to get involved, regardless of whether Obama really cares about their involvement.

I hope, however, that he's genuine in trying to get more people involved in government. If he does nothing else useful, that's a powerful legacy... if he continues to do it.

Journey's End, Tier 7.5, and Other Nerd Speak

When I play games, I try to win. Whether and to what degree one believes I "try" is subject to interpretation. If you ask Katie, I always want to win and I will do whatever it takes to do so. If you ask me, I'm merely playing to the best of my ability and not giving anything up to be nice--no one wants to win because another person went easy on them.

In World of Warcraft, there is no real way to "win" (with the common exception that people who stop playing WoW (as it is commonly refered to) state that they "won" or they "beat WoW." I can't argue with this concept, but that's not what I'm talking about). The game progresses indefinitely, even if you beat the "last boss," which also changes as new expansions are released. Thus, the point is not necessarily to win; it is to enjoy the journey and continue to have fun engaging in various activities peripheral to beating the "last boss."

(It should be noted that it is commonly preached to enjoy the journey on the way to the result. Yet, this concept is not necessarily accepted as applied to video games--if there is no way to "win," what's the point, right? Perhaps the absence of an end point frustrates this concept. If so, I should buy into that, based on my other viewpoints of things with no end point: I didn't learn to drive until I had somewhere to go, and I generally don't take walks if there is no destination. But that's a conversation for another time.)

When I started playing WoW, the endgame raid zone known as Black Temple was either just released or released soon after. BT was supposed to be the "final" raid zone, containing the "last boss" until the next expansion (as it turns out, this wasn't the case, but that's not important either). BT is a Tier 6 raid, meaning that's the quality of loot that drops from enemies contained within, and because loot quality increases based on difficulty, BT was the most difficult raid.

I never set foot in BT. Nor did I see the Tier 5 raids, and my experience with the "high end" Tier 4 raids was limited (lower tier raids were part of the original game and rarely visited; again, not important, except to say that Tier 4 was the "entry level" raid when I started playing). See, because I joined the game at a later stage of the game, I was not well-equipped to see the higher tier stuff--the groups who did that had been together longer and didn't need new players. So, I did what I did, had a lot of fun, acquired new gear, but was never among the "best" or even the "best geared" in my class (which is not necessarily an attainable thing either).

Fast forward to the new expansion: I started playing at the outset of the newest expansion, collected some good gear in Tier 7 content, then through a cooperative agreement with another 10-man guild, collected some great gear in Tier 7.5 content. In fact, my character is very well geared and only missing a handful of pieces that would make him "best geared." Yet, I know and everyone knows that new bosses and raids are on the horizon, and that the current expansion will go until at least Tier 9 or higher. So while I'm on top now, so to speak, that will change swiftly once more difficult raids are available.

Is this a problem? Now that I'm, at the moment, "winning," is it terrible that my "winning" status will no longer apply once new content is available?

I say no, for a number of reasons. First, having great gear, while somewhat telling about what a player has experienced, is in no way determinative of anything more significant. If anything, it means I had the opportunity to be present when the gear happened to drop, and I managed to win the gear ahead of others who might also have used it. In other words, I could have been the most useless player--getting myself and others killed, not doing my job in damaging the boss, etc.--and I still could have "achieved" all this gear by virtue of my schedule and my ability to permit my friends to keep letting me raid with them despite my apparent incompetence. So, just because my gear is great doesn't mean I'm "winning."

Second, I have not really "won" in any sense of the term--though my guild has beat the current "last boss" once, I wasn't there when it happened, and we haven't duplicated the feat since. Plus, with the addition of "hard mode" bosses, the real "last boss" is no longer the most difficult feat in the game.

Finally, winning in this game is not really possible in terms we usually see it--it's about the journey, not the destination. In that sense--enjoying the journey--I have never stopped winning. I am enjoying the journey with friends and other players, meeting new people and sharing new experiences, and generally having a good time while progressing--slowly or rapidly--towards various "ends." I "win" every day, even when I lose.

Thus, though from a gear perspective, I am near the top--the Journey's End, so to speak (which is, funnily enough (or not), the name of the best melee weapon I can equip at the moment), as long as I'm enjoying the journey with good friends and good players, I am always on top. New content only allows us to continue the journey further. Thus, new content means more winning for everyone.

Cardinals Win!

EDIT: I removed the pictures because they were too big for the viewing panel, and I think it's easier to see all of them on Facebook. So here's the link:

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/album.php?aid=2357066&id=10123559

On a final note, it is no secret that I am a Broncos fan first. My first game at UoP Stadium was Broncos at Cardinals, and I wore my orange and blue Plummer jersey and cheered for Jay Cutler's offense. I enjoyed that game, though it was bittersweet--it was supposed to be the "Jake Plummer Revenge Tour," finally playing the Cards in the regular season after leaving the team... only at that point, Plummer had been benched for Cutler (the timing of the decision I still do not defend--Plummer may have got past that Seattle team where Cutler wasn't quite ready). As if that wasn't bad enough, Leinart passed Jake's rookie Cardinal passing record in that game.

I digress. Anyway, I admire Kurt Warner tremendously, as a man and as a player. When I first saw Fitzgerald play in person when Aaron Mertz took me to the Patriots/Cardinals game, I was impressed. He was instantly my favorite receiver in the league, with apologies to Hines Ward. I also enjoyed the tenacity of the then-no-name defense. I liked watching the Cardinals play. Clearly Whisenhunt knows what he's doing as a coach--he's done more than any other Cards coach, and in only two seasons. I liked Denny Green too, and the decision to bring him here (as well as Warner and Emmitt Smith), especially his soundbytes about the Bears, who we thought they were and where we can crown them. I've been paying attention to the Cardinals--not as much as the Broncos, but more than any other team besides.

Whether this makes me a Cardinals fan, you decide. I don't want to take anything away from those that have been following this team since their first season in Arizona (or before). Doubtless the Cardinals will have plenty of bandwagon fans claiming they always believed or they've been following from day one (trying to dig up an old Phoenix Cardinals shirt or buy one on Ebay). I'm not one of those. I wasn't even a football fan when the Cards came to Arizona--I didn't start liking football until I was in high school, and I chose the Broncos because my dad had always followed them AND they happened to be fun to watch at the time.

So take my "status" with the Cards for what you will. But if it's any consolation to those true fans who couldn't get tickets to the game, I made as much noise as I could for four quarters whenever the Eagles had the ball. I did as much as I could to affect the outcome of the game. So despite the status of my fanhood, I tried to play the part--in the good, non-self-serving way--the best that I could, without diminishing the fanhood of those who have been here longer than me.