The Triumphal Return of...er...

I've just recently managed to dig out from under the stack of old newspapers that had me trapped in my basement and am willing--if not exactly ready--to jump back into the bloggery with both bound feet (hey, it was good enough for the women of Imperial China, so back off).

Today's subject will be--surprise!--AFC West footballing. Specifically, the widely held notion that the Raiders are somehow a team on the rise while our hometown squad is in a deep decline.

It's tough to figure out where this particular bit of silliness came from, but it's everywhere--on ESPN, for instance, where supposed journalist John Clayton bobbed his gigantic head in assent when asked if Oakland was improving yet came on Denver radio and threw brickbat after flippin' brickbat (that will be the only sentence you ever read that contains the word "brickbat" twice). It's on our local talk station, where Paleolithic Joe Williams came right out and said Denver has "no chance" to beat Oakland in the first game of the season without #15 on the field. Raider Nation, aka the Claremont Correctional Facility, is spreading loose stool all over the interwebs. But...why?

Let's take a look at some of the reasons being cited and put them to the test with Facts, as we in the news biz like to call them--even if we don't use 'em that much.

1. The Raiders Added Talent, the Broncos Got Worse.

Now, the signing of Gibril Wilson certainly improves their safety play--where have you gone, Stu Schweigert?--and DeAngelo Hall is an excellent athlete. But reading some of the jizz being lobbed, you'd imagine they brought in the ghost of Night Train Lane and had the clothesline tackle re-introduced to the league's rulebook. I've seen more than one writer say that this is now "the best secondary in the league."

That's freaking hilarious. I'll give you Asomugha, certainly--great player. But Hall? What has Hall done in his career to earn even 5 percent of his hype? He's a self-marketer who talks mad shit about his nonexistent "shutdown" abilities. I mostly remember Steve Smith dousing him in kerosene and lighting him on fire. And Wilson? An OK player on a team with a fantastic pass rush. Those two vault the Raiders to the "league's best" category? They aren't even the best in their own division.

And how 'bout that Javon Walker signing? What a deal! 11 million dollar signing bonus for an emotionally crippled, out-of-shape prima donna who whines the second he doesn't get the ball. Just what a young QB needs.

Our acquisitions may not have been as flashy as previous years, that's true--but we used to get pilloried for over-spending. Now we go the financially sound route, and people say we added a bunch of stiffs. And while that might yet be the case (especially if McCree gets toasted and Koutouvides doesn't win the MLB job), I'll take bringing in some solid vets over blowing big money on potential any day.

As far as losing talent, I think Lynch's retirement is addition by subtraction. By the way, if he shows up in San Diego as a part-time player, he will officially make my list of biggest punks to ever don the Denver D. Count that shit.

2. The Raiders Have An Easy Schedule.

This always kills me. People talk about "strength of schedule" like it was the Standard & Poor Index. It's based on past performance, which we all now is not necessarily an indicator of future results, and is pretty much useless as a tool to divine a team's upcoming success. Who thought the Broncos would get waxed in Detroit last year? Or lose to the Texans? Who predicted the Giants would rise up and go on a run like they did? The Bears were a pre-season favorite and stunk.

And yet, nearly every item about the Raiders '08 campaign has some variation on this sentence fragment: "...winnable games versus teams with losing records last year."

Uh huh. They are speaking about a team that won 4 games in 2007. Four. Games. (Although since they won only two the year before, we do suppose that's an improvement.)

The Broncos won three more--still sucky but less so--and besides that, play most of the same teams in the upcoming campaign, resulting in, you got it, what should be an easy schedule. Yet they are viewed in the entirely opposite light. Why?

My sense is that the bloom is off Shanahan's rose. No. 7 correctly points out that Vegas loves the Broncos beyond all rationality, and that love's not been justified by the results of recent years. It's the backlash. People figure this is the eventual rebuilding, and, like with all such efforts, will take a few years of complete sucking to crawl out of. Fair enough, if misguided.

But this nonsense of building up a bad Oakland team run by the undead? Please. I think the Chefs have a shot at a better record than they do.

And that, friends, is not saying very much.