Lowell.Cohn: October 2009 Archives

I write my blogs and column to music. Always. Music separates me from the real world and puts me in the world of my thoughts so I can write.

What do I listen to?

If I want to kick butt, if I'm worked up and am going hard after a point or after a team or after someone I want kick-butt music blasting in my head. I play the Ramones, Prince (Purple Rain, Little Red Corvette), Fats Domino, Jimmy Cliff, Rolling Stones -- anything by the Stones and very loud, Ray Charles.

I never play the Beatles or Elvis Costello.

If I'm writing something thoughtful or with a soft mood, I listen to Miles Davis, Stephane Grappeli, Bach's Goldberg Variations, Mozart's Mass in C Minor.

But if I'm sad or I'm writing something sad I listen over and over again to Dylan chanting "Mr. Tambourine Man." His voice in that song is so bereft and the singer is so cast adrift. It is the perfect sound, the perfect words for that mood. It is my favorite song by Dylan.

What music do you listen to, depending on your mood? And happy Halloween.

Manny Pacquiao is a good fighter but as a businessman he's all wet. He came out and said Floyd Mayweather Jr. is afraid to fight him. He also said Mayweather doesn't like boxing. Mayweather is just in it for the money.

Let's talk about these things. Mayweather isn't afraid of Pacquiao. Mayweather would eat Pacquiao's lunch. When they fight -- and they will -- Mayweather will knock out Pacquiao.

As far as Mayweather only fighting for money -- of course he fights for money. He's a professional. It's his business. He's not fighting for macho. He's fighting for a fortune, and that's as it should be.

So I honestly don't know what Manny is talking about. Anyway, he soon will be fighting Miguel Cotto, a tough guy. Before he even thinks about Mayweather, Manny better make sure he gets by Cotto..

Here is Ira Miller on 4 upcoming matchups:

Minnesota at Green Bay:

Miller: The Packers are going to win a close game. This game comes down to the offensive line protecting Aaron Rodgers. The line didn't do it last time they played Minnesota. Green Bay is going to play Minnesota the same way Pittsburgh played them last week. The Steelers went after Favre. The difference is Green Bay can't play it as well as Pittsburgh. The Packers don't have the personnel on defense. In the 4^th quarter against Pittsburgh you finally started to see Favre play a little old.

Denver at Baltimore:

Miller: I'm still shocked by Denver. It's got to end sooner or later and I think this might be the week it ends. It's stunning the Broncos are 6-0 after what they went through in the offseason. The way to beat Denver is to stop the run and make Orton beat you throwing. You have to score points or stop them on first and second down. You can't let Orton dictate when he throws the ball. Right now the guy in Denver (Josh McDaniels) is coach of year. I'm mystified.

Atlanta at New Orleans:

Miller: Right now New Orleans is the best team in the NFC and they score so many points they force you into pinball games - the ball keeps going and going. They are playing at home and I think the Saints will win. Everyone is talking about Drew Brees but the big addition is Darren Sharper at free safety. That secondary was a problem before this year. He's already run three interceptions back for TDs this year. He's a really good player.

Rams at Detroit:

Miller: Does anybody really care? The Rams have a chance to match the Lions' record from a year ago. They have the potential to be 0-16. It's hard to do that but if anyone can they can.

Cohn: Should Cable bench JaMarcus Russell longer?

Miller: He's go to do something to get Russell's attention. I understand the argument he's got to find out who Russell is but Russell is not showing signs he's getting any better. Benching him might get his attention, maybe. Nothing else seems to.

Cohn: People tell me the Raiders have no quarterback better than Russell, so what's the point of benching him?

Miller: They probably don't but you've got to try to do something to make him better. You don't make him better by saying everything is OK.

Cohn: Last week Russell deflected all responsibility after the Jets loss.

Miller: He's very immature and irresponsible. A good quarterback leader takes responsibility. Joe Montana did.

Cohn: What is his future?

Miller: I haven't seen anything to think he's got one.

Cohn: Are the Raiders getting better?

Miller: No, just like I said last week every once in while they'll win a game just because they'll win a game.

Cohn: How will they do against the Chargers?

Miller: I always expect them to lose. The Chargers have beaten them 12 times in row. The Chargers are not in great shape themselves but they're playing the Raiders. 

Cohn: Any hope for this season for the Raiders?

Miller: Yeah, Richard Seymour guaranteed they'd be in the playoffs so I have to take him at his word. He said last week the Raiders couldn't beat a high school team but they don't play any high school teams. That obviously is the kind of team that causes them problems. They're going to be just fine.

Don Nelson just finished his pregame presser. Salient points:

Ronny Turiaf is the starting power forward. How long will that last?

Nelson: "For tonight for sure. We'll see how it goes. It helps solve one of our rebounding problems. With a small backcourt it fits. I'm very flexible.

Stephen Curry is the starting point guard. Is this longterm? Nelson: "Let's see how it works out. Yeah, for some period of time. He's more ready than most rookies I've had."

Anthony Randolph is a backup power forward -- he seems very backup. Is Nelson disappointed in him? "Not disappointed. He's 20 years old. I'm very excited about him actually."

Anthony Morrow will be the third guard and Nelson said he'll play 25-30 minutes a game.

Just got off the phone with Ira Miller. Here are his impressions of the 49ers. Tomorrow I'll give his take on the Raiders.

Cohn: Your reaction to the switch from Shaun Hill to Alex Smith?

Miller: It's worth a shot. They're not going anywhere with Hill. We don't think they're going anywhere with Smith but it's worth a shot.

Cohn: Why aren't they going anywhere?

Miller: I still don't think they are good enough. Smith hasn't got an NFL arm. Having said that he's had a chance to sit and watch. He's a smart guy and maybe he learned some things. Drew Brees didn't do anything his first few years in San Diego and Phil Simms had injuries his first few years with the Giants before he straightened out. On the positive side Smith doesn't have to deal with Mike Nolan anymore. Nolan couldn't handle a quarterback; that was obvious. Smith has got a chance. I don't think he'll take them to the Super Bowl, but he's got a chance.

Cohn: Can people still say Smith is a bust?

Miller: Well you're going to find out. He's getting a second chance with the team that drafted him and that doesn't often happen. He's being thrown in an impossible situation in his first game. He's got no chance. The Colts are a much better team. The Colts have a quick defense with a good pass rush. Smith is going to play catch-up from the start of the game, so it's hard.

Cohn: Are you impressed that Singletary acted decisively in changing his quarterbacks?

Miller: He did the same thing last year remember when he took out JTO and put in Hill. I don't think Singletary sees shades of gray. He's a black-and-white guy. Everything to him is clear. That doesn't always make it right, but everything to him is clear.

Cohn: Is clear vision good in a leader?

Miller: Yes and no. Certainly decisiveness is. What's the quality of the decisions he makes? He can only play the guys he's got on his roster. The last time I looked he's not choosing Alex Smith over Joe Montana.

Cohn: How good or bad are the 49ers?

Miller: They're in the middle, have been there all along. They haven't been getting any better. A couple of weeks ago I thought they would win the division and they have Arizona at home but Arizona is getting better and the 49ers aren't. I was particularly impressed by how Arizona played defense against the Giants. And leave us not forget that their defensive coordinator was fired by mike Nolan - Billy Davis. He was Nolan's first defensive coordinator in San Francisco and Nolan fired him after two years.

Cohn: Do you still think the 49ers are a playoff team?

Miller: I can't change my predictions every week. Well, I could but I wouldn't. In large measure it's going to come down to that Monday night game at home with Arizona (Dec. 14).

The Kansas City Star interviewed Larry Johnson's dad. If you want to read that article click here. Johnson's dad said he is disappointed in his son and did not raise him to express hatred toward groups.

The Dad clearly equated what Johnson said about gays to anti-black prejudice he experienced. This is not me making the connection. This is Johnson's father.

Reading the article you can feel how much Johnson hurt his dad. When people say cruel things like Johnson said there is fallout they never could imagine.

A week ago I asked Don Nelson to name his starting five. He named C.J. Watson as point guard and he's already ditched that idea. Stephen Curry is the man because he can push the ball up the court. Whether he and Monta Ellis can guard anyone is another question.

Last week Nelson said Corey Maggette is the starting power forward, a chilling thought. I was at practice today and asked Nelson to name his starting five including, of course, power forward. We had this interaction.

I find it interesting verging on sad that most readers who responded to my entry about Larry Johnson defended this guy for using an anti-gay slur in his talk with reporters.

Some of the Johnson defenders said he has the right to free speech or he was upset at the time or it was only words and no one got hurt or he was just joking.

Wow. As far as free speech goes, that means the government can't put you in jail for most things you say. Try shouting "Fire" in a movie theater and see how fast you end up in the slammer.

Free speech does not refer to something you say on the job. An employer can fine, suspend or fire you for saying certain things it considers obnoxious, etc. This is fact and the reader who doesn't know this needs to read up on the subject.

The fact that Johnson either was joking or was upset or just used words means nothing.

Think of it this way. Let's say a white football player (he can be gay or not, that's your choice) was speaking with a group of black sportswriters. Let's say he either was joking or was out of sorts and he said to them "Get your N-word ass out of here." What would happen?

All hell would break loose, as it should. The writers would file some kind of complaint and they'd write about it and the player would have to apologize and he'd get fined and probably more.

All I'm saying is what Johnson said about gays is the same as a white player using the N-word. No sane person would defend the white player, so why are people so eager to defend Johnson? I honestly don't get it. And if you respond please don't tell me I'm a liberal or I'm old or whatever. Please think through your answer.

I'm sitting at my keyboard after dinner and I want to watch Mad Men and read a book and chill, but I can't get Chiefs running back Larry Johnson out of my head. I don't know Johnson from a hole in the wall so I have no prejudice against him although I've watched him run and admire his work on the football field. Now I think he's a bum.

It is alleged he used a gay slur when he kissed off reporters earlier today. He said, "Get your f***** ass out of here." If he didn't say that, I apologize. If he did, the hell with him.

It is not acceptable to say stuff like that. It is a contemptuous put down of a whole group of people -- gays -- and it is a contemptuous putdown of sportswriters, although you may not care about that.

And it's more. Johnson is an African American. One assumes he is sensitive to racial slurs. Although what he allegedly said was not a racial slur, it's real close in intent. He would get angry if someone used the N-word. He should get angry if someone, like him, uses the F-word. I'm sure angry.

Imagine if a 49er used that word in public to the media. This would be a player for a San Francisco team saying crap like that. All hell would break loose in the Bay Area.

And the player, believe me, would be fined, would apologize publicly and might even be sent to sensitivity training. And all that would be absolutely correct.

I read that Johnson's agent is going to issue a statement. Who cares about the agent? Johnson needs to issue a statement. He needs to apologize. The Chiefs need to step in. This is their issue too. They must tell Johnson this stuff stinks. They must fine him.

A lot of people were angry because Rush Limbaugh wanted to buy into the NFL. They didn't want a racist like him in the league -- I'm not saying Limbaugh is a racist. But if he is, why is Larry Johnson any better than Rush Limbaugh?

I haven't written about the Steve Phillips mess because I'm not an expert on adultery, infidelity in marriage, etc.

But articles about the guy keep appearing so I may as well chime in now that ESPN fired him. Please don't get angry at me, but I still don't understand why he got fired.

I'm not advocating adultery. It's just that I thought someone's private life is supposed to be private. If Phillips did a good job on air why does his private affair become relevant? I'm not arguing or challenging anyone. I just need to understand.

I also know David Letterman had affairs with his staffers and he didn't get fired.

And I know something else. Pro athletes are notoriously unfaithful to wives. You know this, too. They don't get fired if their wives find out and if there's a scene and if there's a divorce. So why is this Steve Phillips guy so different and why is he held to a higher standard? Please help me understand. To read my column on Alex Smith and JaMarcus Russell click here.

Here is the transcript of Mike Singletary's Monday presser. Thanks to the crack 49er public relations deparment for generously providing this valuable material.

As you read this stuff notice how careful and polite Singletary was with Hill. He did not tell the media he had replaced Hill as starter until he spoke to Hill first earlier this morning. In this regard, Singletary is a stand-up guy and I respect him for how he handled Hill. Here are his remarks to the media:

Opening Statements:

"First of all, the injury report: [T Tony] Pashos, left shoulder contusion; [LB Marques] Harris, hamstring strain; [DT] Justin Smith, left calf strain; [NT Aubrayo] Franklin, right knee sprain; [LB Takeo] Spikes, right shoulder sprain. Pashos will have an MRI today. We should know a little bit later on today. He and Takeo Spikes both will have MRIs, and we'll have further information later on.

As far as this upcoming week, in terms of the quarterback, [QB] Alex Smith will be the quarterback. As far as, will [QB] Shaun Hill be back and all this other stuff, I think I told you last night, we're not going to be a flavor of the month kind of thing, 'Well, let's see, this guy will be this week, this guy will be next week.' One of the things I want to have you understand is I wanted to make a decision based upon who I feel gives us the best chance to win. I think Shaun Hill, at the beginning of the season - when I met with Shaun today, I told him just that, 'I felt that you gave us the best chance to win at that particular time.' He has done a great job up to this point, but we feel that right now, we need to go with Alex. I feel that Alex Smith gives us the best chance to win, and to use the tools that we have going forward."

On why Smith gives the team the best chance to win:

"Because I think Alex has had a chance to really regain some of the confidence, not that he ever lost it, but I think just giving him a chance to settle in and have him watch Shaun Hill - and there's something about watching a guy and looking at some of the mistakes that he made and how you would do it different, looking at some of the things that he does well and maybe implement those things in your game. He had a chance to look at his decision-making process, learn the offense a little bit more, but certainly giving him a chance to develop that hunger, develop that excitement and enthusiasm for playing, 'and, if I ever get a chance again, I'm going to do it this way.'"

On whether the team needs Smith's ability to hit the intermediate and long passes:

"I would just say this: I think, right now, overall, Alex Smith really just kind of fits the bill in terms of doing the things that we need to get done."

On whether he will open up the passing game a little more:

"I think, going forward, we'll just try to look at it and, once again, it depends on how the team is playing us and everything else. I just want to reiterate what I said from the very beginning. I have never, ever said that we're just going to run the ball, run the ball, run the ball - three yards and a cloud of dust. I have always said I want to run the ball when we want to run the ball. I want to strive more for balance, but I want to run the ball when we want to run the ball. That's what I've always said. I have not shied away from that. I want a balanced attack."

On why the team hasn't been able to run the ball when it wants to run the ball:

"We haven't been able to run the ball when we wanted to run the ball because they normally have about eight-and-a-half people in the box, sometimes nine. Sometimes, that makes it a little more difficult. When you have an offensive line that's been banged up and you're trying to get that right, it makes for not a good combination right now, but as we build confidence, as we continue to get better, it will work itself out."

On whether he is concerned with the lack of success on the ground in the second half:

"No. I think that as we go forward, things will work themselves out. Yes, we had a tough time running the ball at the beginning of the third quarter, but there were also a couple of runs we made. It's the cat-and mouse-game; if you can throw the ball then you can run the ball, if you can run the ball then you can throw the ball. As we evolve and we get more in sync with whet we are trying to do with the offense, and once again, we had a chance to see what Alex Smith can do, we are just going to continue to explore where we are going to go with his ability."

On what he will do with the offensive line if Pashos cannot play Sunday:

"You know what, I'm not going to start, 'What about this? What about that?' If he can't go, we'll work it out. We will figure it out. There are several options that we have, whether we take Snyder back out to tackle and keep everyone else kind of the way it was. We will just have to take a look and see."

On the right guard position:

"Right now, we have to continue to help [G] Chilo [Rachal] as much as we can. I think one of the issues we have right now, some guys are really trying to play perfect. Some guys are really trying to play mistake free. When you do that, you become robotic and it takes you out of your game. I just want guys to go out and play. I think a guy like Chilo, it is like any player, when you know the spotlight is on you, when you know you have to play better, some guys respond to it very well, and there are other guys that fall prey to it. I think it is one of things where we have to help Chilo as much as we can because there are some things he does very well, but there is one particular stunt there that really gets him at times and we have to continue working on that, showing him that in practice and allowing him to work on it. He just has to mature on it."

On whether that particular stunt accounted for a sack in the game:

"Yes."

On whether switching quarterbacks was something he thought about before the game:

"When I talked to Shaun Hill this morning, it is one of the things I really wanted him to understand, this is not something that was premeditated. It is not something I talked to anybody about like, 'Well I'm going to wait for the right opportunity to do this.' It was important for me that he understood that as the head coach, I think my most important responsibility is to put us in a position to win. I just remember at the end of the Atlanta game, we were behind, and we were trying to make some plays and it just wasn't happening. Yesterday, you kind of see the same scenario coming, and I just felt we have to do something to help ourselves, give ourselves a chance to get back in the game and try and win the game. That's really all it was. As I said before, when I look at Alex we really didn't know what we were going to get. I was hoping we were going to get what we have seen out here in practice, and that is what we got. I was excited to see that and the excitement and the enthusiasm on the sideline, and the excitement and the enthusiasm on the defensive side of the ball, the receivers, the running backs, everybody. It was just one of those things where I felt we are going to go forward with that."

On whether QB Alex Smith starting is a function of his athletic ability over what QB Shaun Hill brings:

"Athletic ability? Are you talking about having a stronger arm, maybe make the throws? I think it's probably a combination of a number of things, - just really getting settled. You have another coordinator coming in. You had an offseason where you are trying to work things through with your shoulder, finding out exactly where you are with your shoulder, and at the same time, you are just trying to get settled. We were just letting the guy get settled and getting a chance to think about some things and at the same time, there happens to be a season going on. We wanted to let him develop that hunger, let him get excited about if I get an opportunity again, let him develop some confidence. 'I think I can do that. If it comes again, I want to do it like this or I want to do it like that, rather than just putting him in there at the beginning of the season and if you don't have success right away, then it's same old Alex. I don't think it's the same old Alex. I think Alex has matured, I think he's grown and I think he's ready to play. We're going to find out. We'll find out next week."

On where the quarterback situation falls in terms of his concern about this team:

"Quarterback is certainly one of them, but the quarterback situation, for me, has never been an overriding factor because of the way we said we had to play to begin with and that was to run the ball. But, the offensive line, we've got to continue to make sure that we get the things that we need there, the continuity in a hurry. That revolves around a number of things. So, when you are able to put eight and a half people in the box and just sit there, in your comfort zone, and stunt here and there, I mean, it's awfully hard on an offensive line that's trying to jell. You've got some young guys in there at the same time trying to make it happen. You can get awfully creative when you've got eight guys in the box. So that's certainly one concern. Hopefully, we are able to make some throws. Hopefully, we are able to make them and get the heck out of the box and hopefully we are able to make them play us right, make them play us fair. We certainly have some playmakers out there and having a quarterback that can consistently make the throws that Alex can make, then it gives us a chance to really branch out a bit and open things up a bit."

On concerns on defense:

"Defensively, we are continuing to look at the film there and make some evaluations. We'll have to make some decisions on the defensive side, if we need to."

On whether he is talking about personnel:

"Yes, but we have to look at more film and we'll get there."

On the primary concern being the secondary or the entire defense:

"Just the defense."

On someday having CB Nate Clements move to safety:

"That's not in the realm of thinking right now.."

On his concerns of the defense in general:

"In general, my biggest concern right now is just the communication factor and we'll get that solved this week. We'll get that solved today as a matter of fact. In terms of the communication, I think that there are a few things there that we can do a lot better and I didn't know really that it was that much of an issue, the communication factor, and you know that it's just a small thing, getting the guys in there, in the huddle and having them understand whose talking, whose not, and who's giving the information from the sideline and going from there. And so, one of the things that I sat in on one of the defensive meetings this morning it's just a matter of bringing clarity to what we're doing because we are too good of defense. When I look at our defense, we're a good defense, with the opportunity to be a great defense. But right now, because of the communication factor particularly in the last couple of games, and the way those games have gone you get guys starting to do their own thing. Guys starting to think they heard this so that's when you really have to communicate very  well to make sure that guys don't start doing their own thing.  So, we just have to get on one page and kind of relax and settle down and let's go from there."

On whether there is a problem in logistics with LB Patrick Willis and his radio helmet:

"Maybe, we may have to take a look at that.'

On what jumped out at him after seeing WR Michael Crabtree on film after yesterday's game:

"Nothing jumped out at me that I didn't see yesterday. It was very evident yesterday, I just wanted to see it on film just like when you see a good movie. You want to see it again. But, I saw him yesterday and I made sure that I talked to him this morning and let him know that all of the hard work that he did while he wasn't here, it showed. All of the studying that he did while he wasn't here, it showed. So it was good to see."

On whether or not he was surprised to see how many total plays Crabtree was in comparison to all the receivers on the team:

"No, again he told me how much he was working and I heard from some other sources outside of the building on how hard he was working and all the route running that he was doing every day. I knew that he wasn't in football shape, but if he was doing what they were telling me he was doing, what they saw him doing, then I knew that he was going to be in pretty good shape. I didn't think about the other things, but I would say that I was a little bit surprised that he was able to go on all of those plays. But I thought for certain, maybe 30-40 plays, but to basically go the whole game, that's pretty impressive. "

On using more of a three receiver formation with Alex Smith going forward:

"We're going to do whatever we need to do win. Three receiver, four receiver, five receiver, I don't care. We're going to do whatever we need to do to win. But we're going to run the ball."

I just drove home from 49er Central where Singletary said what we all knew -- Alex Smith is his starting QB. This is the right move. Sure, Shaun Hill has terrific intangibles. He's gritty, resourceful, a leader. But he can't throw downfield and he's not so great at short passing either.

Smith is simply more talented. I asked Singletary if he will open up the offense now that he has Smith. Singletary got defensive, said he always wanted balance in the offense. I never noticed that.

Smith can give him the balance and his long and medium passes could open up some running lanes.

I credit Singletary for making this change. He did not go into the season planning things this way but when he had to act he acted.

He said today the waiting period was good for Smith. It made him hungry. It made him study hard. It made him ready when called upon. I agree. The Raiders should sit JaMarcus Russell for exactly the same reasons. In both cases absence could make the heart grow fonder.

There's speculation Tony LaRussa will return as skipper of the Cards and Mark McGwire will come with him as hitting coach. And all I can say about that is YES!

McGwire has been a pariah since those awful congressional hearings. Mostly, he's made himself a pariah. He probably took performance enhancing drugs but any reasonable person has to feel McGwire did his time in self-imposed exile. Even Barry Bonds mixes in public.

So McGwire needs to come out, needs to mingle. He may be surprised people are happy to see him. All credit to LaRussa for facilitating this positive development.

I'll be driving down to Santa Clara shortly for Mike Singletary's Monday presser at 12:15. Of course we'll ask him about Alex Smith. I expect him to say Smith is the starter from now on. If he says it's still Shaun Hill it will be a condemnation of Singletary, of his stubbornness and shortsightedness.

I can't imagine him condemning himself. I'll get back to you in a few hours.

Bench JaMarcus Russell already. Where is it written this guy needs to start? He stunk today and Bruce Gradkowski was no big deal but he was better than Russell and he didn't throw any picks.

But Cable won't even consider benching this guy. "JaMarcus will continue to be our starter. There's no issue there," Cable said.

There should be an issue there. The Raiders should not anoint Russell. He is making no progress and he takes no responsibility for anything that goes wrong.

Someone asked if the crummy offense is his fault and he replied, "Personally I don't think so. Do you?"

Well, yes. I think so. It's at least some of his fault with his 31.1 passer rating against the Jets until he got yanked.

And while we're assigning blame. Let's remember the challenge Cable (and I) issued this team. Win two in a row. Don't bask in the glory of one win. Show us you can make it a trend. Some trend. The Raiders lost 38-zip.

Another season spinning down the drain. To read my column on Russell click here.

A few days ago Richard Seymour said the Raiders will make the playoffs. "You can mark it down," he said.

It's the beginning of the third quarter and the Raiders are going to lose this game. They already gave up 222 rushing yards to the Jets. That's an obscene number.

I hope Seymour likes these playoffs. He can mark it down.

Sitting here in the press box at the Oakland Coliseum I'm wondering how Singletary handled Alex Smith this season. I want to say Singletary was brilliant. He let Smith relax and learn and heal -- if he needed healing -- and Singletary smartly put him in at the right time.

Maybe. But there's another way to look at it. Singletary gave Smith nothing. Smith had to dig deep inside himself to keep up his confidence. I want to remind you what Singletary said of Smith leading up to the Houston game. He said Smith looked good in practice, then added, "You can bring guys in here off the street and practice and they'll look fine."

Smith didn't exactly come in off the street. He was taken first in the draft.

I've got to make this quick because I'm covering the Raiders today and need to get ready for that game. But all praise to Mike Singletary. He didn't like what he saw in Shaun Hill, so he yanked him at the half.

I don't know if Singletary is a good coach, I really don't. But I do know he's extremely decisive. He makes up his mind and acts and that's terrific.

So far Smith looks way better than Hill. And while we're at it, Michael Crabtree seems very good -- has moves, hands. Who's better Crabtree or DHB?

Here is Ira Miller on the Raiders. We spoke early Thursday morning before the decision of the Napa DA not to prosecute Tom Cable, so we did not include that topic.

Cohn: Richard Seymour told the media the Raiders are going to the playoffs. He said people should mark it down that they're a playoff team. What do you think about his remarks?

Miller: I think they're hilarious because the Raiders are not a playoff team.

Cohn: Why not?

Miller: The Detroit Lions aside, it's hard to lose every game and the Raiders are all excited because they won a game last week. Give me a break. They've still got to go to Dallas, Pittsburgh and Denver and they play Baltimore. It's laughable.

Cohn: But they beat the Eagles.

Miller: The Eagles have some issues besides the fact that they manage the clock so poorly. The Eagles played like crap. With 2:02 to go they were still in the game and then they call that stupid timeout. The Raiders had third and 10. By calling timeout they gave the Raiders a free pass to throw the ball. Otherwise the Raiders would have run it and punted and the Eagles would have had one more shot at it. Let's face it you don't lose every week. The Raiders had lost three in a row by at least 20 points each time. It's the old blind squirrel thing - everybody's going to find an acorn once in a while. This is their acorn. It happens. Winning one game doesn't make them the Lombardi Packers.

Cohn: Was this a fluke or is it a trend?

Miller; It's a fluke not a trend.

Cohn: But the Raiders defense is coming on.

Miller: No. They haven't played well except for the Eagles game. Do it for a month then I'll be impressed.

Cohn: Can the Jets run on the Raiders?

Miller: Just about everyone else has. Philadelphia didn't. The Eagles are just flawed. The three teams the Eagles beat were Carolina, Kansas City and Tampa Bay. They are a combined 3-14. The one good team they played, New Orleans, killed them. You've got to factor that into what happened last week.

Cohn: What about the Raider offense?

Miller: They have no quarterback or receivers. We keep coming back to that.

Cohn: Who wins when they face the Jets?

Miller: The Raiders should win but I'm going to say the Jets just because they're playing the Raiders.

Cohn: Why should the Raiders win?

Miller: Because they're playing at home against an East Coast team flying across the country with a rookie quarterback who threw five interceptions last week.

Cohn: Why will the Raiders lose?

Miller: It's so typical of them finally to win one game and Richard Seymour is falling right into it with the rest of them - we're the greatest, we're going to the playoffs. They can't keep their mouths shut. Let them accomplish something. How many years have we listened to this crap?

Ira Miller and I spoke this morning about the 49ers and Raiders. Here is what Ira said about the Niners. Tomorrow I'll post his comments on the Raiders.

Cohn: Do you think the fact that Michael Crabtree will play helps Shaun Hill or exposes his limitations?

Miller: I think Hill is largely exposed already. He can't throw the ball down the field. What we're really talking about here is the Mike Singletary philosophy. We start by knowing Singletary is not happy with his quarterback options. We know that. But the problem is he has the quarterbacks he has and the game has changed. You don't win the way Singletary wants to win just by running the ball. It used to be if the quarterback threw for 300 yards you were coming from behind and probably lost the game. Historically when they throw for 300 yards teams have won far fewer than half the time. This is changing. This year teams passing for 300 yards have won two thirds of their games. Last Sunday was a perfect example. 300-yard quarterbacks were 6-2. One of the two who lost lost because the kicker missed a field goal on the last play.

By the way, Lowell, I largely disagree with your take on 49ers quarterbacks that they owe Alex Smith a chance. I don't think it makes a bit of difference whether it's Smith or Hill. Both are mediocrities. They might survive in the NFC West and I think the 49ers will win the division because of the level of their competition.

Cohn: You're saying the 49ers would get the same results with either quarterback.

Miller: Yeah. Neither one is a good enough quarterback for what they need to be. Let me add this. If Alex Smith were not the first player taken in the draft would we even be having this conversation? The fact that the 49ers made a mistake by drafting him does not make him any better.

Cohn: Lots of readers are saying Nate Davis is the answer.

Miller: Could be but I'd like to see him play. He's got to be developed. A couple of rookie quarterbacks had really good years last year but you've also got to consider what they've got around him to help him.

Cohn: There's not a lot around him on the 49ers?

Miller: Not enough. Look at the quarterbacks who succeeded as rookies - Marino and Flacco for example. Their teams had something special. The 49ers have nothing special. They have a decent defense, not great. A good running back. Mediocre offensive line. An offensive philosophy with no imagination. You can't carry a rookie quarterback like that. What's going on with the Jets and Mark Sanchez is more typical of what happens with a rookie quarterback.

Cohn: Will Crabtree make a difference?

Miller: A minor difference. Defenses have to respect him. Go back through history. Rookie receivers have less success than rookie quarterbacks. Something like one of 20 rookie receivers drafted in the first round gain 1000 yards. J.J. Stokes was a perfect example. In college physical skills will carry you. In the NFL you're up against guys just as fast and just as smart with a lot more experience. They won't let you get into your route. It's a much different game.

Cohn: Is the Niner offense built to utilize Crabtree?

Miller: No, but it could be. It keeps coming back to the quarterback.

Cohn: Let's look ahead to the Texans.

Miller: They are starting to play run defense better. They seem to be able to score points. They're playing at home. I would pick Texans. They have a much better quarterback and they score a lot of points.

I spoke with Don Nelson after today's Warriors practice. He talked about a lot of stuff I think you'll find interesting. I noticed he didn't answer in as much detail as usual. He could have been tired from the ordeal of his poor brother-in-law getting a leg amputated. Other writers told me he hasn't been speaking as much as he used to. Do you notice that?

Here's our conversation.

Cohn: What are your goals for this team?

Nelson: To be as good a team as we could possibly be. Period.

Cohn: Is this potentially a good team?

Nelson: I like the team. They've got a ways to go.

Cohn: Is this a playoff team?

Nelson: We shouldn't talk about playoffs at this point. We should talk about maxing out whatever it is we have to give, see how our young guys are coming along. We desperately need that to be as good as we can be.

Cohn: What does this team do well?

Nelson: Our fast break isn't where we want it. We haven't run very much in games. I'm very disappointed with that. I'd like to play a little faster. We just have some issues. What do we do well? Um. We're learning together so I can't really tell you other than we've made nice improvement on our defense.

Cohn: There has been some disharmony on this team. Can this team play together in harmony?

Nelson: Yes because harmony has nothing to do with the issues that have come up. Players like each other so they're always going to side with their brothers as opposed to side with management. That's something you would expect and it's a good thing. And they forgive and they know personalities and they understand just like the coach has to. It's not an issue.

Cohn: What is your starting lineup?

Nelson: I'm going to start C.J. and Monta together. We are not going to start Randolph. We're going to start Maggette. And we will start Goose at the 5 and if Jack can play we'll start Jack. Otherwise I'm not sure at the small forward.

Cohn: Why start Maggette over Randolph?

Nelson: I don't think I have Randolph anyway. He's really been hurting and he hasn't been playing up to his potential for several weeks now.

Cohn: Because he's hurt?

Nelson: I think so. I'm not sure. A lot of times guys take a step back before they go forward. I don't know if it's injury or it's that situation.

Cohn: It's a small team.

Nelson: Yeah it's small.

Cohn: Is that an issue?

Nelson: Size is always an issue in basketball. Not so much in horse racing.

Cohn: The strife you've had on the team, does it make you weary does it make it hard to coach?

Nelson: It does for a short period of time. Like anything else you get over it, you move on and you do your job.

Cohn: I felt sometimes last year you seemed somewhat detached. Is my perception incorrect?

Nelson: I'm letting go as I get older and letting my assistants do more. If that's what you're talking about that is a factor. I let them do more in the games as well. But, yeah, I'm very passionate, still love to win above anything. But I also have to know and understand the situation the team is in and accept that as part of what it is I do.

Cohn: When you say the situation the team is in, what do you mean, Don?

Nelson: Well, we're growing, we're young, we're in transition somewhat. So those issues. And we're not a dominant team.

Cohn: How is your health and stamina?

Nelson: Good. Thank you for noticing the 20 pounds I lost (he's joking).

Cohn: I'm in no position to comment.

Nelson: I noticed.

Cohn: This year you have a chance to become the winningest coach. How do you feel about that?

Nelson: I don't feel much about it. I'd like to get it out of the way so people would stop talking about it. Maybe I should take that as what it is. I really don't know what it means, maybe that I've been around a long time. Won a lot of games. Lost a lot of games. It is what it is.

Cohn: You say that a lot, it is what it is.

Nelson: I do. Because that's a fact. There's only so much you can do.

Cohn: So "it is what it is" means "some things are out of my control."

Nelson: There you go. Learn to be patient.

Cohn: Are you a great coach?

Nelson: I've been a very good coach. I don't know if you want to call me great.

Cohn: And you're proud of that?

Nelson: Yeah, you can write that on my stone - He was a good coach.

Cohn: I hope you last a little longer.

Nelson: I probably will.

Cohn: Tell me one thing that has been good about you as a coach and I'll put it on your tombstone.

Nelson: The thing that's important to me is my teams max out their ability. Maybe if I look back there'll be a team I was disappointed with, but I can't remember.

Cohn: You're not yet in the Hall of Fame. Is this something you think about?

Nelson: I don't feel I belong there so I'm fine with not being there.

Cohn: Why don't you feel you belong there?

Nelson: Because that's a place for greatness and I just feel I'm very good.

Cohn: Greatness might be an "A" and you might see yourself as a "B."

Nelson: Yeah. That's good.

Cohn: Just two more questions.

Nelson: Good.

Cohn: Am I boring you?

Nelson: Yes.

Cohn: What do you see yourself doing after you're done coaching?

Nelson: It somewhat depends on what they want me to do here. Eventually, I'm going to go to Maui and I'm going to live half my time in the Bay Area and half my time in Maui.

Cohn: Do you have a time frame?

Nelson: I'm going to coach two more years, this one and one more. I'm going to give the organization one after that but not as head coach. Whatever they want me to do I would do and then don't know after that.

Cohn: Thanks, Don.

This is going to be an unpopular post because of anti-union feelings in our country these days. Nevertheless, here goes -- and please understand I am a member of a guild so I have a prejudice.

I read this morning the NBA refs, who are not working, are close to an agreement with the league which may get them back on the job by the opening of the season. Good, we need the best refs.

But there's something troubling to me about all this. Once upon a time workers would honor other workers who had gone off the job for contract related issues. That hardly ever happens anymore. It's every man for himself.

It would have been cool if the players, who have their own association, refused to play in preseason games in deference to the real refs -- think of it as labor supporting labor.

But I know that's only a dream on my part. Among other things, when was the last time professional athletes considered themselves "labor" and when did they ever care about regular working stiffs?

I have an appointment to interview Don Nelson in about 3 hours. I was thinking he might have to cancel because as you know his brother in law had his leg amputated and Nelson left the team to be with his family. So far no cancellation.

Thanks to Zohn readers who explained they read my blog and sometimes my column if I link it to the blog. I always try to do that. I am learning blogging but have been a columnist 30 years and am proud of my columns. I used to define myself as a columnist. Now I define myself as a blogamist.

Back at you in a few hours.

I already have advanced the idea Shaun Hill is limited and if he has more crummy games the Niners should give Alex Smith a chance.

This idea becomes doubly relevant now that Singletary has decided to start Crabtree Sunday. Crabtree -- super fast wide receiver; supposed to have great moves. Well, can Hill get him the ball? Does Hill have what it takes or will the inclusion of Crabtree expose Hill's limitations even more grossly?

This Crabtree thing could help Hill but it also could hurt him if he can't get the job done.

Think about this. Crabtree is allegedly a Ferrari. The Niner offense is a Ford Falcon. The Niners need a QB who can drive a Ferrari. Can Hill find the clutch?

On another subject. I'm wondering about something. All you Zohn readers who read my blog -- I appreciate that you read me -- do you also read my column on the PD website? Or are the blog readers and the column readers two separate groups? This is not a quiz. I'm just curious. If you find a moment to respond I will be grateful, if not -- no worries, we're all busy.

Does Michael Crabtree deserve to start in the 49ers next game?

It is question fair minded people are asking. He missed a ton of time by his own choice while others worked hard in training camp and after. Josh Morgan stands to lose the most by Crabtree starting and Morgan didn't hold out.

So is it fair that Crabtree leaps over everyone and will start on Sunday?

Of course it's not fair.

Does that mean it's wrong for Crabtree to start?

No, it's not wrong. It's right. Pro sports are not like school. You don't get a gold star for attendance. The coaching staff owes it to the other players and the fans to put the best players on the field. If Mike Singletary thinks Crabtree is one of his two best wideouts right now he must start him and the other WRs who don't start must live with that.

I always am happy when a good new boxing book comes out. Of all sports literature the writing about boxing and baseball is the best, but not that many people write about boxing anymore.

Tom Cushman, a veteran sportswriter, just published the exemplary "Muhammad Ali and the Greatest Heavyweight Generation." It is a series of profiles of heavyweights from the Ali Era, all of whom Cushman knew or still knows. He had the kind of intimate access to these men I wish I had.

Because of his terrific access he is able to give new and thrilling insights into the following fighters -- Ali, Joe Frazier, George Foreman, Larry Holmes. For boxing fans this book is a must. For lovers of good sports literature this book is a joy.

There were some questions about JaMarcus Russell at Tom Cable's presser today. Some of them were about Russell's development and his future. Cable had this to say about Russell: "Where he goes will ultimately be up to him."

It is a strange response if you look at it closely. Cable could have said Russell's future is limitless -- Al Davis uses that approach. But Cable didn't say that. He said it's up to Russell.

Call me crazy but one way of interpreting that is -- the only thing holding Russell back is Russell himself. If you want to go further, you could interpret Cable as saying Russell is indeed holding himself back.

It's interesting that no one ever praises Russell's work habits. They say he's getting better -- implying he was previously deficient. But no one ever says he's a good worker or a terrific worker like Rich Gannon, or he busts his tail in the work area.

So for Cable to say it's all up to Russell is, to me, Cable saying the kid who was handed everything on a silver platter still needs to work harder -- or even hard.

Cable also blamed Russell's first sack by the Eagles on Russell himself, said Russell went the wrong way. Does that mean Russell didn't know the play? I don't know. But Cable made of point of saying he didn't understand why Russell took the direction he took.

Tom Cable just finished his Monday presser. Afterward, I noticed Raiders public relations whiz Mike Taylor was hanging around the room. I found that odd as Taylor rarely spends time hanging with the media, although he's in charge of media relations.

I knew he was waiting to speak to me. I waited.

Finally, he quietly sidled up to me at my desk and from behind gently whispered in my ear. "What I said was, 'Don't harrass my players.' That was my quote."

I stand corrected. On Sunday I wrote he used the word "incite." If Taylor says he said harrass, I bow to his greater knowledge of his own words of what he said when I entered the Raiders postgame locker room on Sunday.

I might also add he had no business warning me about incitement or harrassment. I never harrassed any of his players, although he wouldn't know one way or another. And the issue was over and he should have let it drop. Almost every PR guy in the world would have let it drop.

And as long as we're talking about harrassment, about 20 reporters saw him harass me in the press box, unheard of behavior, about 3 weeks ago. He kept calling me "podnah" whatever that means and threatened to ban me from the Raiders locker room, something he has no power to do.

I want to praise Mike for being polite a few minutes ago. He whispered to me, better than shouting at me and insulting me as he did the first time. It's nice to know even a veteran can learn some manners and is capable of showing a little improvement in his performance of his chosen profession.

I have an appointment to interview Don Nelson on Wednesday. The Warriors just wrote me and said they think he can keep the appointment but his family has suffered a tragedy. His wife Joy's brother was in a motorcycle accident and will have a leg amputated.

I once met Don's brother in law and he seemed like a nice guy. Nelson will be away from the Warriors a few days to be with his brother in law but may be back in time for me on Wednesday. Not that that matters. I wish Joy's brother and the entire family well and if Don has to cancel the Wednesday interview everyone will understand. I sure will.

Some Zohn readers have written me indignant notes recently saying if a team -- e.g. the Raiders -- doesn't want a reporter -- e.g. me -- in the locker room they can ban that reporter. Someone who claims to be a doctor said I have no right to be in the locker room and he drew an analogy from medicine which I still can't understand.

So let me clarify all this. Media are credentialed to be in the locker room at specified times. In baseball and basketball that includes a period before and after games. In the NFL it includes an extended period after the game.

When the media is allowed into the postgame NFL locker room the room belongs to the team and the media equally. It is not like the team is inviting the media in and can pick and choose which reporters or columnists it wants to allow in. The league established a policy a long time ago that the team must share the room with the media.

The league also mandates that players talk to the media. This is part of the function of promoting the NFL's game.

So for a reader to insist that the Raiders can tell me to leave is just plain incorrect and misinformed. If the reader does not like this policy he should take it up with the NFL.

There's more, of course. Let's say a reporter like me asks Richard Seymour why he pulled an opponent's hair. It's a fair question. I am not there to adore Seymour. I am there to ask his reasons for things he did on the field.

One reader -- not the doctor -- said Seymour had asked me to address another question and I was rude by pursuing the hair pull. Not accurate. I asked if he pulled the hair and then I followed up with why. At that point Seymour told me "Get out of here."

He never asked me to change the subject nor did he say no comment, which every athlete knows how to say. I find it interesting that so many readers defend athletes in their interactions with the media and even alter facts in defense of athletes.

Finally, the open policy in locker rooms does create problems. I admit this. Players are steamed after a loss and sometimes have short fuses. This leads to conflict. I know all about that. But that doesn't mean a journalist should not do his job.

And then there's the issue of nudity. It is a shame athletes can't change in private especially male athletes with women reporters around. This is the big problem about the postgame locker room and it has yet to be solved. Please understand, I am not saying women reporters should be banned. No way. I am saying the system is flawed and I don't see a remedy.

Word is the Napa authorities will say something about Tom Cable on Monday -- whether or not they will prosecute him. So Monday is potentially a big day.

After his team beat the Eagles, someone asked Cable about coping with all the distractions confronting his team.

This was in part a reference to Cable's case, if you can call it a case, and Randy Hanson's busted face.

"We live in America for a reason," Cable replied. "The process is going to take care of itself. Enough said."

I guess that means Cable believes he's in the right and his rightness will shine through. We'll find out soon enough.

The last time yours truly was at the Oakland Coliseum for a Raiders game I got into an animated discussion with Richard Seymour about hair pulling, as you know.

Mike Taylor, who does something sort of resembling public relations for the Raiders, later harrassed me in the press box and threatened to ban me from the locker room after the Eagles game.

Of course he did not do that.

I walked into the locker room after Tom Cable had spoken to the media in an interview room, after the Raiders beat the Eagles. Of course it was my right to enter the locker room because I am credentialed to do so.

Taylor was standing at the door. He seemed to be waiting for me.

"Lowell," he said.

Naturally, I ignored him and kept walking as if he didn't exist.

"Lowell," he repeated to my back as I walked away from him.

"Lowell, don't incite my players," he said.

This from a public relations man -- starting a fight all over again. I kept walking, never turned my head.

To recapitulate the background. I never incited Seymour. He didn't like my question and incited himself. Taylor accused me of inciting Seymour but Taylor wasn't there at Seymour's locker when the verbal exchange took place and didn't know what he was talking about.

As far as warning me not to incite his players after the Eagles game -- I honestly believe the Raiders can take care of themselves. They are grownups. If Taylor had done his job properly after the Broncos game when Seymour was penalized for pulling a guys' hair, Taylor would have advised Seymour how to answer the inevitable questions about hair pulling. It sure didn't seem Taylor had done that.

Anyway I didn' t incite any of his players after the Eagles game. And I did all the work I needed to do in the postgame locker room. So that's the story.

I read Stephon Marbury is sitting out this NBA season. He said it's a good business move while he continues to develop his "empire."

Not having an empire I don't know how to build one. But I do know he turned down $1.3 million from the Celtics, thought it wasn't worth his time to play for that pittance. That's his business.

So, when did $1.3 million become chump change? I'd play hoops for that kind of dough. I'd do a lot of things for that kind of dough.

Do you feel sorry for Marbury that he was offered "only" 1.3? I don't.

I'm reading Russ Francis is in trouble. Something about misuse of a credit card. I hope this amounts to nothing because I really like Russ.

So I guess this blog is about how I like Russ. I like a bunch of guys from the old 49ers teams -- we were roughly the same age and could relate to each other, to the extent we could relate to each other. I liked Russ, Charle Young, John Frank, Ronnie Lott, Steve Young, Randy Cross, Dwight Clark, Keith Fahnhorst. I really liked Keith and was delighted to see him at Bill Walsh's funeral service.

You'll notice three tight ends on my list. Tight ends for some reason are the most interesting people on a football team. And Russ might have been the most interesting of all.

He lived somewhere -- I don't remember -- and flew his plane to Livermore and then drove to Niner headquarters. He was a loner. He was an individualist. He was a great player. He was tough. He did what he wanted. He used to make Walsh crazy, except that Walsh really liked him.

When Russ retired he wrote me a long handwritten letter on yellow lined paper -- no player ever did that before or after. He wrote that he enjoyed our exchanges and he had to admit a lot of the players used to get down on me but that only amused him. And he wished me a good life.

I wish Russ a good life. I hope this difficulty blows over and he has happiness.

Thank you, Zohn readers for taking the time to answer my survey.

This all started a few days ago. I was talking to a friend -- it's crazy but I can't remember who it was -- and I asked him who reads sports blogs. Whoever he was said, "The same people who call into radio sports talk shows."

That got me thinking. I decided to ask readers of my blog if they call into those shows. As I started to type the blog asking that question it dawned on me I could ask other questions too. So I quickly typed in my survey. I never have created a survey before and many readers noticed that because my questions about books were out of a normal order. I apologize.

So what did I learn? Well, this was fascinating. It turns out almost nobody in 34 respondents calls into talk shows. My friend was entirely wrong. A different population writes into blogs.

One caution. It could be that other Zohn readers call into talk shows and only the 34 who wrote back don't. Still, I found it fascinating that the 34 have no interest in hearing themselves on radio. In addition, they do not watch much of ESPN. I had asked if they watch at least two hours a day.

Here's a confession. I almost never watch ESPN except if it's presening a sporting event. I don't like the shouting and the over-hyped presentation, can't stand it.

I learned other things. Most Zohn readers read about sports but they do it online. Of course, this hurts my heart. I want people to read a real paper newspaper, but I completely understand and feel reading online is reasonable and the true reality of life.

Most, but not all, respondents said they feel momentarily bad if their team loses, but it doesn't ruin their day. Some watch reality shows -- one reader said Top Chef. I am not familiar with reality shows.

I asked readers for their favorite athlete. Many said Joe Montana. I can see why. He embodied so much we admire around here. Ronnie Lott's name came up a lot. That made me happy because he's one of my favorites and wow what a player. Someone said Barry Bonds is his favorite. Others said Bonds was their least favorite.

Among the least favorites I got names of guys readers associate with big egos -- Manny, T.O., Tiger Woods, Brett Favre and anyone on the Dodgers.

Here's a personal note. I get the feeling the 34 who replied are not stereotypical sports fans. They read books and magazines, many not about sports. They have strong opinions. They don't bother with calling sports shows or watching ESPN -- they have better things to do.

So, thanks. I'll keep all this in mind and hope my writing lives up to your high standards.

I've entitled this entry: Who reads sports blogs?

I really want to know and remember I'm still learning. So I've come up with some questions and if you'd care to answer I'd be grateful.

Do you call into radio sports talk shows?

Do you read about sports online or in a newspaper or both?

Do you watch at least two hours of ESPN each day?

Do you watch the local PBS TV station?

Do you watch a reality show?

Do you feel down if your team loses?

What sports magazines do you read?

What non-sports magazines do you read?

What kinds of books do you read?

Do you read books?

Who is your favorite sports figure?

Who is the sports figure you like the least?

What's going to happen with Tom Cable and the punch-out case with Randy Hanson?

It's the big question hovering over the Raiders. I mean there's no other question. The question: Will they be good? already has been answered.

There is some feeling that this is a he said she said case and the Napa authorities won't prosecute if they think they will lose. I understand that but I don't think it will work that way.

This is a high-profile case and Napa can't let it go away. They already have interviewed the coaches who were in the room when Cable did something to Hanson which resulted in broken bones in Hanson's puss. I don't think the coaches will perjure themselves for Cable. Why should they risk going to jail for him?

They probably told what Cable did to Hanson. If they said Hanson tried to hit Cable first or went for a knife or revolver, then things get interesting. I don't believe that happened, though.

Either Cable goes to trial or the Raiders make a big cash settlement with Hanson. I'm thinking there will be a settlement and Hanson gets rich enough to buy an island in the South Seas. And then Cable gets fired. He'll get fired anyway.

Compare Alex Smith to Stephen Jackson. Jackson is starting and he's still bellyaching. Smith is a scrub -- an immense comedown from what he once was.

Yet he works hard and he's staying behind during the bye week to continue working. He is a model teammate. He will be throwing passes to Michael Crabtree, also staying behind.

All credit to Crabtree. We are afraid he's a prima donna but business is one thing and playing is another. He may turn out to be a hard worker and good teammate.

Matt Maiocco did an interesting podcast with Smith. Click here to listen.

Call it a gut feeling on my part but I think Monta Ellis is the next big problem on the Warriors. After that the next big problem is Nellie, coming to a theater near you later this fall.

Ellis never reconciled to the money the W's took away from him last season.

He says he can't play with Stephen Curry.

He is hugely influenced by Stephen Jackson. Jackson says he's not a role model but I think he's role model to Ellis. Don't be surprised if Ellis has a crummy attitude this season. I think he wants out.

And I'll tell you something else. When this kid came into the league he was the sweetest most approachable young guy. Forget that now. He has that distant unapproachable ironic/sarcastic superstar personna. He's no longer a joy to be around.

What a bunch those Warriors are.

To read my column on Stephen Jackson click here.

I'm reading Rush Limbaugh may drop his bid to be part of a group that buys the Rams. Interesting.

There's one more thing I want to say about all this -- and I know I'm wandering away from sports. I'm wandering into the world of hypocrisy, a world which bothers me no end.

Jesse Jackson was one of the first to oppose Limbaugh's bid for the Rams because of what Jackson considers Limbaugh's view on race.

Jackson is the guy who called New York "Hymietown," as a Zohn reader reminded me today. The word Hymietown sounds racist to me. 

A Jew could call New York Hymietown and get away with it. A non-Jew can't unless he wants to be called racist.

A black can call another black the N-word but a white person can't unless he wants to be called a racist.

That's how it works and everyone knows that.

So how does Jackson get off implying Limbaugh is a racist when Jackson said what he said? It's called being a hypocrite. Some people have a lot of nerve.

I feel weird defending Rush Limbaugh because I am not a fan of his. But that's exactly why I'm defending him.

I defend his attempt to buy the Rams because this has become a political issue and I don't think that's fair. I defend any law-abiding citizen's right to buy a team or buy anything he wants. The latest guy to weigh in was Colts' owner Jim Irsay who said he won't support Limbaugh's bid for the Rams. Would Irsay defend someone he agrees with politically?

I think liberals -- especially the liberal media -- don't like Limbaugh and denying him the Rams is a way to say the hell with you, Rush. 

Lots of folks don't like Limbaugh's politics and they don't want him to own a team -- you know some of the more famous ones. Is there now a political test for NFL ownership? Is there a test which investigates someone's political persuasion? If so, that's absurd.

It means conservatives could try to block a liberal from owning a team, say Bill Clinton. I hope you can see that.

There are further objections to Limbaugh. He made that awful remark about Donovan McNabb on his short-lived shortsighted stint on ESPN. Who thought of giving him that gig? He put down McNabb and it sounded like he was putting down black quarterbacks. But I don't think he was. He was putting down the liberal media for favoring a black quarterback -- in his mind. It was a bad stupid remark and it was dead wrong. Most sportswriters judge on talent and performance, not on race.

What Limbaugh said was a slight of McNabb and McNabb didn't deserve that. Comments like that do not belong on purely sports shows. ESPN should have known what they were getting with Limbaugh. But I honestly don't believe he was putting down black players. He was putting down the media, and what he did was wrong-headed and old hat because we'd heard it a million times before.

I have read on this blog other racist remarks he allegedly made. People sent them in to me. But it's not clear he actually said them. So I wonder about the validity of those remarks.

I expect people to attack me for defending Limbaugh on this one issue, to attack me personally. That will be too bad because this is a philosophical issue, not a personal one. It's an important issue that deserves calm and rational debate.

If the Raiders, currently 1-4, lose their next 3 games -- they will -- and enter the bye at 1-7, should Al David fire Tom Cable?

In a real football organization you'd say yes, fire the guy because he obviously can't coach. Believe me he can't.

But, remember, this isn't a real organization. It is a bizarro rendering of a real organization. I say the Raiders should keep Cable because they won't be able to get anyone better in midseason. Then they fire him at season's end.

I welcome your input on this question. Perhaps I'm missing something vital.

Here is Ira Miller on the 49ers. I apologize for the sound of traffic in the background.

Most Zohn readers who responded to my blog asking for suggestions on the Bay Area's worst sports franchise named the Raiders. It's an easy call and no one can dispute it. Some named the A's and I find that interesting and I won't argue with that either. But somehow no one named the Warriors. I find this strange and frankly an insult to the Warriors who have done everything possible to win the worst mantle.

I'm not saying the Warriors are the worst. I'm just saying they deserve serious consideration. So let me remind you --
Stephen Jackson is no longer the team captain and today said being the team captain is over-rated. Don Nelson is the coach and I ask -- are you convinced he cares about winning? Chris Cohan is the owner and I ask the same question about him I ask about Nelson. The Warriors have lost Baron Davis and Al Harrington and now they have alienated their best player. This is a very bad franchise and I'm surprised no one voted for it. If someone could find it in his/her heart to make a case for the Warriors as the worst I would read that with interest and appreciation.

It's a tough one, deciding on the Bay Area's worst sports franchises. We have some really bad ones. But I love a tough challenge so here I go, and I invite your input on this one.

First, I rule out the Sharks from this discussion. I don't cover them and have no opinion although they seem very well run. OK?

I rule out the Giants as the worst sports franchise because they actually made progress this season. They have a long way to go but they played meaningful ball almost to the end. So they're actually pretty good.

I rule out the A's, although they were just awful. I'm giving Billy Beane the benefit of the doubt. He says the team is rebuilding and please be patient. I'm not sure how long we're obliged to be patient. But I give the A's a pass on the worst-team award although they're a horrible team. How do you feel about this? Am I being too kind?

I rule out the Niners as the worst franchise. They have made strides and they try hard. They are not as good as we might think and you know all their liabilities. Still, this is a franchise that is trying hard and is improving, although the 49er still need a better, more professional front office when it comes to personnel.

OK, now we get down to it, to the absolute bottom feeders -- the Warriors and Raiders. These organizations stink. They are neck and neck for the title of biggest sports embarrassment in the known world.

My gut feeling tells me the Raiders are the worst, that no organization could be worse than that weird wacky unhappy incapable franchise.

But just when I settle into that opinion something always happens with the Warriors. It's like those people over there can't stand for the Raiders to be the all-out winner in the crummy award.

So captain Jack Stephen Jackson goes nutso and gets banned two games and you realize the Warriors really are a mess and the Jackson situation is just the tip of the ice berg over there. By the way, I intend to write my Wednesday for Thursday column on the Warriors' current disaster.

Deciding between the Warriors and Raiders is a tough one -- just think of those dueling bad owners. It gives you a headache. I still vote for the Raiders. To me they are the absolute pitts. Which team do you advocate if advocate is the right word?

Ira Miller and I and our wives had dinner in San Francisco Monday night. Afterward I interviewed him outside the restaurant for the Cohn Zohn. You can hear the traffic of California Street in the background. Here is what he said about the Raiders. Tomorrow I'll post what he said about the 49ers.

I just drove home from Tom Cable's weekly presser and am getting ready to write my column. After that I meet Ira Miller in the City for dinner -- I'll tell him the Zohn readers ask after him.

In my column I am going to write that Cable should not be the one answering tough questions week after week. Al Davis should. Davis has ruined the once-proud Oakland franchise. Cable is not at fault. He's merely a symptom. Back at you later. To read my column on Davic click here.

People are criticizing Stephen Jackson for acting unprofessionally so the Warriors will be forced to trade him. I have criticized Jackson for this.

I wonder if there is another way to look at it. So I put this as a question:

Is it possible we are blaming Jackson when the Warriors are really to blame, when the Warriors are really the heavies in this situation?

As I say, I wonder about this and would welcome your thoughts.

I'm calling this one "God, the Sequel." It follows Sunday's blog about Singletary and the Almighty which led to an avalanche of reader reaction much of it critical of me. I'll try to answer readers' main points in a rational neutral tone. I'm not attacking anyone. I'm trying to make valid points. Whether I succeed or fail is up to you.

Question 1: Why is Cohn always bringing up Singletary and God?

Actually, I'm not the one who brings up God. Singletary does. You might say he shoves the deity in the faces of reporters and through reporters in the faces of fans. He used to thank God for a victory. Now after a victory he merely thanks God for his coaches and players. I prefer that. I don't like to think God doesn't like the losing team. I pointed out yesterday that Singletary did not thank God for his coaches or players after the loss. I still wonder why. I think a man who thanks God in public - I wish he didn't - should thank God all the time. I think there are things to learn from losing and I certainly think losing tests a person's character and makes him think more deeply than a win. I'm serious about this. I think Singletary, who makes such a point of thanking God for his coaches and players after a win, also should offer gratitude after a loss. And remember I am not the one who framed this issue of God. Singletary did. Zohn reader Fred Garcia has pointed out that if Singletary worked in any other business he would be reprimanded by management for bringing his personal religious beliefs to bear in interactions with other workers and people. Think about that. He has chosen to use his role as coach as a pulpit.

Why doesn't Cohn write about real sports instead of a person's beliefs, which have nothing to do with sports?

I find this question narrow and naïve. I want people who write this to define what they mean by "sports." If all they mean is wins and losses and statistics there is absolutely no need for them to read a newspaper or to read commentary. Remember, I am a columnist. I am not a reporter - although sometimes I report things. I give my opinion. My opinion includes insights, feelings, etc. about the people who inhabit the sports world. I write about their personalities and I praise and criticize them for things they do. All columnists do this. And readers love to read about sports people. Writing about "sports" is also writing about sports people. And you know it. So, I write about Singletary. Yesterday I criticized how he coached against the Falcons and I wasn't the only columnist to do that. You may disagree with my insights; maybe you think he coached OK. But it is my job to comment on how a coach coaches if I think he was not up to par. I also write about Singletary talking about God because it is a salient part of his behavior and he imposes it on people all the time when he, in fact, should be talking about football.

What are Cohn's religious beliefs?

I've gotten this one a lot lately. Readers want to know where I'm coming from religiously so they can gauge my remarks about Singletary talking about God. I don't get into my religious beliefs. That's my entire point. The way I understand it a person's religion, a person's faith is private and quiet - it is between him and God. And I leave it at that. I won't burden you with my private beliefs and I choose to keep them to myself, well, my wife and children and brother and sister know about them. But it is not appropriate for me to write about them to you. I guess that's a way of answering the question and I hope it gives you a proper context.

Dre Bly intercepted a pass put his hand behind his head like a bathing beauty and hotdogged it. And then Roddy White hit him and induced a fumble and the Falcons got the ball right back and scored a field goal. Bad play by Bly.

Worse play in the locker room when he said of the hotdog play: "I'm going to be me -- that's who I've been. I like to have fun when I play the game. When I make plays, I've made a lot, I express myself."

That is one of the dumbest quotes I ever heard. Maybe he should find another way to express himself on the field.

The 49ers got murdered today and after the game Mike Singletary came to the interview room and said, "Questions please."

Fair enough. It's just that after wins lately he' s made a point of thanking God for his coaches and players. Does he only do that after a win. Is he not thankful for them after a loss?

I'm just asking. To read my column on Mike Singletary's coaching click here.

I've been to a bunch of Tom Cable news conferences this year and he often says the Raiders are right "there." He never actually says where there is or if there's a there there.

It's the 4th quarter of that monstrosity against the Giants and, hey, I assume the Raiders will lose. I wonder if Cable will say the Raiders are right there or if he'll assert once again he can see how good his team is although no one else can. Apparently he has X-ray vision. By the way, there refers to the absolute bottom whether Cable knows it or not.

I figure Al fires him at the bye, not that it matters who coaches for this loser franchise.

I read the NFL Players Association isn't so thrilled that Rush Limbaugh wants to buy the Rams as part of an ownership group. I read that several players have expressed their objections to Limbaugh as an owner.

Well, who cares what the union and players think?

The last I heard if you have the money you can make an offer to buy a team. If your offer gets accepted you're an owner. That's how it works in America. Limbaugh's political views are not relevant to his owning the Rams. I'm sure other owners in the NFL have views to the far right and no one says they can't own a team.

I mean, Limbaugh is on the radio all the time. He's not in jail. He's not a criminal. You may think he's a creep or his views are divisive but that has nothing to do with owning a team. If he gets banned from ownership because of his views some players etc. could ban someone with liberal views. You see that, right? This whole argument is really stupid.

If the players want to say who owns a team let them buy one themselves. Otherwise they should shut up and just play football.

The Warriors just suspended Stephen Jackson for acting badly last night in a game.

Fine.

Great.

It's obvious Jax wants to be so obnoxious the W's will trade him. Trading that contact won't be so easy.

But get this. They suspended him two exhibition games. Big Deal. Some players would consider that a bonus.

Steve Stricker and Tiger Woods just went dormie at the Presidents Cup. They went a whopping 6 strokes ahead of Ryo Ishikawa and Y.E. Yang with 6 holes to go, which means they can do no worse than tie. That's called going dormie. Don't you just love the word dormie?

Right now the Americans lead in two matches, the Internationals in three. Going into this round this US led 10-7. It takes 17 1/2 points to win everything.

Over here at the Presidents Cup they gave the media little radios that get us PGA Tour radio or something like that. It's a generous gesture and it means we can listen to the broadcast.

It's just that the announcers, whoever they are, keep referring to San Francisco as "Frisco." One even called San Francisco State "Frisco State."

Are you kidding me? I wish someone would tell the announcers how to pronounce the name of America's best city.

When I wrote a blog in praise of Tiger Woods I had no idea how many negative comments I would receive re: him. I guess he's a polarizing figure. I don't cover golf much so I don't have a strong opinion about him as a person, although I admire him as a golfer.

I do want to discuss one critiicsm of him, though. One Zohn reader complained that Woods is so Stanford.

Is it wrong to go to Stanford? I went there and I'm not stuck up or yuppie. At Stanford I had, by far, the best educational experience of my life and I believe, with no evidence, it is the best university in America all things considered.

So I hardly think it's a knock against Woods that he went to Stanford. But he only went two years. If he really is a jerk -- and I'm not saying he is -- maybe it's because he didn't go long enough. Maybe he's not enough Stanford. There's that old joke that he played through college.

One other thing. In Stanford sports media guides they always list famous alumni. They list Woods. I thought that was a mistake. I thought you have to graduate to be an alum. I looked up the word in the dictionary and to my surprise it said an alum can also be someone who merely attended the school.

So Woods is a Stanford alum, although I don't really believe he is in the sense that matters. I guess that means McEnroe is a Stanford alum and Jason Kidd is a Cal alum. Whatever.

I just got a phone call from a friend who read my blog entry about Barry Bonds being here at Harding Park for the Presidents Cup. My friend mentioned the irony of the situation.

Bonds is, or was, the best hitter in baseball. The baseball playoffs are in full swing. Bonds is a spectator at Harding Park.

I do not feel bad for Bonds but I recognize the irony. Lots of admitted drug guys got jobs this year. Jason Giambi who can't hit much got two jobs. And Bonds can't get any job.

What does this prove?

It proves baseball doesn't want him. The A's who needed a lefthanded power hitter preferred Giambi and Jack Cust to Bonds. That's how far Bonds has fallen. That's how much he's become a nonperson in a sport which made him famous.

A Zohn reader wrote me an email and then posted a comment on the Zohn in answer to a Tiger Woods blog I posted. I had written Woods is the "embodiment of excellence and poise."

The reader took issue with my assertion -- I must say the reader took issue in a polite manner and I appreciate that considering the subject. So, thanks for that.

But I disagree with the reader, humbly and politely. The reader advises me and you to go to YouTube and type in Tiger Woods swearing. If you do that you hear him use all kinds of four-letter words after hitting bad shots. No doubt about it.

Does Woods' use of curse words on the golf course mean he is not a gentleman, mean he does not embody excellence and poise?

I don't think swearing means he lacks excellence, etc. I still think he has excellence and poise. Most athletes swear -- it's just that the microphone doesn't pick them up. Bill Walsh, who had a refined image, swore all the time and his favorite adjective was the F word. He was a football coach and that's how football coaches talk and his speech pattern under certain circumstances did not diminish him as a gentlemen.

Most of my friends swear. I swear. Women I know swear. On that fancy film show on PBS the narrator asks famous actors their favorite swear words.

So come on, go easy on Tiger. And I'll tell you something else. When Tiger first appeared on tour he was totally programmed. You thought you were talking to a robot. Swearing humanizes him, makes us realize at some level he's a little like us.

One more thing about cussing. When I was about 14 I went to the US Amateur Tennis Championships with my friend Howie King. It was an amateur tournament in those days in Forest Hills, Queens. They had some kind of demonstration for kids on a back court. One of the players in involved was Earl Butch Buckholz. Remember him?

He was very nice to the kids. Then he played his match and at one point he mis-hit a ball. "Beans!" he yelled.

Beans? Howie King and I looked at each other and laughed. We were 14 but we already were way beyond beans. I sort of lost respect for Butch that day. I mean, beans was the best he could come up with?

In later years, I reached the conclusion he knew how to swear properly but held his fire because kids were present. I guess that qualifies as excellence and poise.

When Tiger Woods teed off at the first tee today you should have heard the applause. He is the ultimate superstar. He may be the best athlete in the world today. If there is someone better please tell me.

Even if he isn't the best, he is the most recognized athlete. He is what Ali used to be -- the embodiment of excellence and poise.

Jerry West was there when Woods teed off. So was Barry Bonds -- both inside the ropes mingling near the golfers. Sometimes you forget Bonds exists because you don't see him much. But he appeared happy -- he laughed a lot.

His head looked smaller. It looked smaller to me. He had a regular size head. In fact, I bumped into a friend of mine afterward and said I had seen Bonds. My friend said, "Did you see it?"

I said, "You mean, the head?"

He said, "Yes, the head."

We agreed it was smaller or, as my friend put it, "He no longer has the fat head."

We wondered why his head looks smaller.

Some Zohn readers have written comments saying I was rude to Mike Crabtree in Tuesdays' press conference. They say it was wrong for me to ask him direct questions.

Let's discuss that. The press conference was a professional meeting, not a love fest. We were not there to adore Crabtree. The essential questions were why he held out and what he gained by it. I asked what he gained.

Some readers felt I put him on the spot -- he's a young guy and I should have been gentle with him.

He wasn't gentle with the Niners. He played hardball with them, tried to big-time them. He just got something like 17 million, for that he could answer a question.

There were many things he could have said when I asked my question. He could have been honest. Instead, he chose to tell me he was humble. That was not an answer. It was a pose. Someone had coached him to say he was humble when some nervy reporter asked what he had gained. When I pressed him he said it was a humbling experience. Give me 17 mil and I won't feel so humble.

He hangs around with MC Hammer and Deion Sanders, so how humble is he? Humble people don't say they're humble, don't advertise it. They act humble. This guy didn't act humble while he made the Niners twist in the wind.

He may be a good guy and he may turn out to be a good player, but it is essential to ask the important questions at a press conference. If I made him squirm -- well he made the 49ers squirm for two months.

Starting today, I'm covering the Presidents Cup the next three days. Sunday I'm back at the 49ers. This feels like a bit of a holiday in the middle of football and the baseball playoffs. I hope you enjoy my writing from Harding Park. If you're going there today bring a jacket. I'll get back to you later.

I interviewed Ira on Tuesday about the Niners - this was before Michael Crabtree signed so we did not address that. I intended to run this as a podcast but obviously I have lots to learn about recording a voice over the phone so you actually can hear it. So here's the transcript.

Cohn: Were you impressed with the 49ers' win over the Rams?

Miller:  In a minor sense. To beat the Rams the way they did isn't a great accomplishment. They seem to be getting what they can get out of their personnel. That to me is the first job of a coach and a coaching staff, to get what they can out of what they have. Without question they're doing that so far.

Cohn: Do you praise Singletary for what he's accomplishing?

Miller: Yes, he seems to be changing the atmosphere. Any player looking at Singletary's playing resume -- and it would have been true of Art Shell too if he coached a real professional team - if you've got that playing resume the players are going to respect you. I remember Patrick Willis coming into the league and how excited he was to be playing for Mike Singletary. Strategically I'm not that excited with every little thing Singletary has done but on balance he's done a very good job to begin changing that atmosphere.

Cohn: The 49er offense is limited. Should that be a concern or is that part of a natural evolution of what Singletary is trying to do?

Miller: It's part of what he's trying to do. His philosophy is limiting the offense - like the end of that game against Minnesota when he was reluctant to throw the ball and gave Brett Favre the chance to win at the end of the game. Would he change that philosophy if he had another quarterback and more receivers? I don't know. I think this is the way he played football and what he believes. You can win that way if you have the quarterback who can win games for you. So far it's hard to knock what Shaun Hill has done. I told you last week I think he's outstripped the coaches' perceptions of him. He's still going to be a limited guy. They need work still on the offensive line and they need to improve the pass rush. They're way ahead of where they were.

Cohn: Is this a playoff team?

Miller: I think they're going to be in the playoffs because the rest of the division is so bad. So I guess that makes them a playoff team. They'd have to collapse. The Rams stink. Seattle is a mess once again and Arizona I'm not sure they're going to get back to where they were at end of last year. If the 49ers don't totally tank -- and the schedule gets a little harder for them once they get out of the division -- yes I see them as a playoff team right now.

Cohn: What is your prediction for the Atlanta game?

Miller: This is a good test. The Falcons are a decent team. They're not a great team. They're going on the road. My gut feeling is I think the 49ers are due for a letdown at some point. I think the Falcons are pretty decent. My gut feeling is the Falcons but I wouldn't be betting on it.

Cohn: You're saying with all their progress the Niners may stumble. But even if they stumble you don't see it as definitive or horrible.

Miller: The key for them even more than Atlanta is going on the road and beating Houston. They've got a little tougher stretch coming up but nothing that daunting. The teams aren't so tough. For example they're playing the AFC South this year, normally a pretty good division. Houston, Jacksonville and Tennessee all seem to have problems. We'll see.

Here is an exchange between Michael Crabtree and yours truly at today's news conference announcing the 49ers had signed him. Read it and then I'll give you my take on it.

Cohn: Why was it worth it to hold out all that time?

Crabtree: I'm just glad I'm past that part.

Cohn: I understand, but what did you gain?

Crabtree: I'm very humble right now. It's a very humbling experience. It just gives me a chance to sit back and better myself as a person, as a player and as a teammate.

Cohn: So you're saying holding out all that time made you humble.

Crabtree: I'm not just saying it made me humble but it's a very humbling experience. I feel like going through that made me look at the world a different way, look at my teammates a different way. Hopefully it'll work out for the best.

OK, that's it. Now here's the deal. Crabtree never really answered me, I don't think. He sounded scripted. Everything he's done the last few months has been scripted I guess by his agent Eugene Parker, the big screwup if you ask me.

But study Crabtree's words. He never said holding out was worth it because it wasn't worth it. I don't believe he got a lot more money. He got another year and that makes it look like more money. But it's pretty clear the Niners won. So his holdout was useless.

He says he learned humility. You bet. When you think the sun revolves around you and then you realize things move on without you that's a slap in the face. It tells you you're not that important. That'll make you humble in a hurry.

He also said he now understands himself as a person -- yeah he's not that important -- and as a teammate -- yeah, he's finally come to Earth and become a teammate as opposed to a holdout.

Finally, he says he looks at the world in a different way. Sure, he 's not the center of the universe. Welcome to the real world, Mike, and I'm glad the Niners gave you a look at reality.

Just got out of the press conference introducing Michael Crabtree. It's pretty clear Crabtree's agent Eugene Parker screwed this whole thing up.

He wanted ridiculous money for his guy and thought he could get it. The Niners, to their credit, held firm. Sunday Parker phoned the Niners and said he and Crabtree were flying into town. The Niners had just won 35-0 and it's clear Parker saw the bus leaving without Crabtree.

Niners GM Scot McCloughan graciously said the final deal was mutually advantageous but it's clear Parker and Crabtree blinked and didn't get significantly more than they had been offered in the first place.

Plus they had to go for another year which means they gave up one year to save face and get a little more money.

McCloughan said things which make you think Parker blinked. "There was no panic from ownership or the head coach."

Translation: We stood firm.

"I'm curious to find out" why Parker gave in.

Translation: We were tougher than they were.

Now it's all over. It will be interesting to see when this kid can make a contribution.

The Michael Crabtree saga is over. Thank goodness. Without knowing the details of the contract, I'd say both sides saved face which I guess is important. I also think the Niners held firm, were not pushed around and that definitely is important.

There are more important things to consider. Now that the 49ers have an allegedly terrific wide receiver will they know how to use him? That's the key issue.

It would be nice if Shaun Hill actually throws passes to this guy, some down the field. I'd hate to think they got a Porsche but refuse to take it past second gear. As they say, the ball is in Singletary's court.

We keep reading the 49ers are talking to Michael Crabtree and his agent. So I suppose it's true.

The question becomes this. Should Niner fans hope the team signs Crabtree?

Yes, absolutely yes.

What Crabtree did by holding out was stupid. But that doesn't mean he's a bad guy. And we hear he's a terrific player.

Remember this, the Niners never have badmouthed him. They have tried to keep things professional If the team and Crabtree can work things out, great. Crabtree could come to the team and learn a few plays and play in a game after the bye. Remember this was just business all along and that's how both sides see it.

Hey there, I'm trying again to be a podcaster. I was going to post this one on Thursday but I'm eager to learn. So here's Ira talking about Brett Favre and telling people what he himself is doing these days. I hope this works, keeping my fingers crossed.

What do you know, I just listened and there was Ira. He was softer than I was because he was on the phone. I heard him well if I put an earpiece into my computer. I hope this podcast works for you. If not, please tell me. And if anyone out there knows how I can improve the sound quality give me a shout. I hope you enjoy Ira's insights.

Wouldn't you just know it? I thought I could record Ira but I never could upload the podcast. I'll learn, I promise.

Here is a transcript of his remarks on the Raiders. Tomorrow it will be Ira on the Niners and Thursday Ira on Brett Favre.

Cohn: What are your impressions of the Raiders' loss against Houston?

Miller: I really thought it would be a tossup game Houston isn't very good. I was probably suckered by how well the Raiders played against San Diego in the first game - or how well I thought they played. Maybe we're getting to find out San Diego isn't that good.

Cohn: How do you rate the Raiders?

Miller: Rate them? (His voice is incredulous.) They clearly are one of the worst teams in the league. They're not as bad as St. Louis, obviously, or Kansas City. They'd be down there 28, 29, 30, no question about it.

Cohn: Tell me quickly what major problems they have.

Miller: Quickly no. (Again the incredulous voice.) It starts with Al Davis. We used to talk when the 49ers were really great, it starts at the top. Well, fish start stinking from the head. I wrote when I still was at that paper in San Francisco the three most important people on a team are the coach, quarterback and owner. All you've got to do is look at the people in those three positions with the Raiders. It all starts with Al Davis, he runs the thing. Until he gets someone else in there to make decisions they're going to stink.

Cohn: So he's the fish head.

Miller: He's the fish head.

Cohn: Does JaMarcus Russell have a future with the Raiders?

Miller: He plays a certain style. I thought when they drafted him he was a horrendous fit for the offense Greg Knapp and Lane Kiffin wanted to run. Its' beginning to look like he's a horrendous fit for any offense.

Cohn: Project the Raiders' final record.

Miller: I said last week I'd be shocked if they're any better than 2-6 at the midpoint. Now I don't think they can even do that. I'd be surprised if they win any of their next four games. It's probably a stretch to predict them at 5-ll, an absolute stretch.

Cohn: (In an incredulous voice) 5-11?

Miller: I said it's a stretch. Beyond that it's a matter of speculation as to how high up in the top 10 they'll make their next draft mistake.

Cohn: The assault case seems to be closing in on Cable. Your thoughts?

Miller: Obviously something happened. There's something I don't understand. If I were Tom Cable why would I not plead guilty and ask to be sent to jail to get away from coaching the Raiders. To me it's a better option.

Cohn: Can someone coach them from jail?

Miller: No one can coach them from anywhere. They're just a joke. It's hard to take them seriously.

Ira Miller and I will speak in about 45 minutes. We're trying something new today. I'm recording our conversation -- hopefully -- and will post it as a podcast.

In fact, I'm planning on dividing it into three podcasts: Raiders, Niners, bonus questions. And I'll post these one at a time, one day at a time for 3 days.

I hope all this works and you like it. If I'm not doing it right -- say maybe the sound is no good -- please advise me and I'll try to get technical help.

I don't understand why people call Al Davis, "Mr. Davis."

I don't understand when sports writers address Al Davis as Mr. Davis.

I don't understand.

I bring this up because I was listening to KNBR today and a caller referred to Al as Mr. Davis.

Why?

People never referred to Bill Walsh as Mr. Walsh or Carmen Policy as Mr. Policy or Jon Gruden as Mr. Gruden. And they don't refer to Amy Trask as Ms. Trask or Jed York as Mr. York. It's all first name basis. They call me by my first name and that's how I address them.

What's so different about Al Davis? I admit he has a long history in football and the earlier part of that history was good -- not always -- but better than now. Now it's dismal. We all can agree on that. Some Raiders fans are writing me and wishing he'd kiss off.

I think people address Al as Mr. Davis as a sign of respect or maybe fear. I think people become obsequious around him and I don't understand why. He deserves to be treated politely as anyone deserves to be treated politely.

But he is Al, not Mr. Davis. That's how it works in sports.

Listen for me on KNBR tonight at 6:00.

I just got out of the Brian Sabean/Bruce Bochy debriefing, their end of the season post mortem. I'm writing this fast because I have to drive to Harding Park and pick up golf credentials, then I'm on KNBR with Ralph and Tom about 6:00 p.m. So I'll use the quotes I scribbled in my notebook and I won't transcribe my tape. Forgive any errors.

The big news was the no news. I expected an announcement that Sabean and Bochy had signed new contracts. Nothing like that was forthcoming even though the Giants had 16 more wins this season than last and even though Bill Neukom personally told me all he was looking for was one win more than 2008.

Asked if he and Bochy will return, Sabean said, "I shouldn't go there. Whatever has been put out is really jumping the gun. There's a process. Until that happens (new contracts) it's not my place to comment."

Here's what I'm pretty sure is going on. Sabean and Bochy will return and deserve to return. There really is a process of talking about the club and working out contract details and Sabean respects that. He also respects Neukom and doesn't want to preempt him - Neukom is his boss. Unless there's an unexpected cataclysm these two will return.

Here are random quotes and topics I think you will find interesting.

On how the club's thinking has changed. Bochy: "We're in a win mode now. You  know you're good, know you can play with the other teams. It's important to be in that win mode."

Will Sabean root for the Dodgers in the playoffs because they're in the same division as the Giants? Sabean with a laugh: "We hope they get knocked out in the first round."

Will Bengie Molina be back? Sabean: "If Bengie comes back it's a matter of how long against what Buster Posey may or may not do in the future. He certainly deserves due consideration."

On Posey's ability to take over from Molina in 2010: Sabean - "It's a tough position to jump from where he's been. You don't call your own game in college. He's a quick learner. You need offense. I don't know if he's ready offensively. The numbers he put up in the Pacific Coast League are a misnomer. (Catcher) is probably the toughest place to break in for a younger player."

Bochy on Posey: "The hitting, that's a big jump. There are going to be some growing pains with this kid."

What do those last two quotes mean to me? The Giants will deliberate long and hard before letting Molina walk.

On the club's weak offense: Sabean - "We have to get more consistency at the one through 5, who's going to go out there every day."

More on weak offense: Sabean - "We were waiting for guys to hit the three-run homer. We were waiting for guys to hit a double with the bases loaded."

There was a lot of waiting.

Sabean said the leadoff spot might be a combo of Velez and Torres and Velez is most likely to play outfield and just a little second base. "We'll have Pablo hit third, fourth or fifth," Sabean said. "We're going to need more power."

On the free-swinging Giants: Sabean - "A lot of times when you have Pablo and Bengie, they are free swingers. The team takes on that personality. I'd like to find someone to anchor down the lineup in a different way. We'll agonize over trading a pitcher for that kind of piece (a power hitter)."

Bochy on Sandoval: "You're not going to change Pablo, that's who he is."

On motivating the team by acquiring a hitter: Sabean - "We'll show this group we're trying to take it to the next level."

On trading Matt Cain: Sabean - "I'd have a hard time trading anybody of that ilk. It's very difficult to get value back in a position player for that kind of pitcher." He said the Giants own Cain for two more years, as opposed to one as has been reported. "Trust me," he said, "it's very difficult to trade for a middle of the order player. It's going to be for a lot of money and a shorter term than you'd like."

Could Uribe be the shortstop? Bochy - "We do have Edgar there. Juan can also play third base. Could he play shortstop? Sure." Bochy said Renteria's elbow was killing him all season and he will play better in 2010.

Will the Giants re-sign Freddy Sanchez? Sabean said he's still considering Emanuel Burriss at second. I don't think so. "Our aim is to get something done with Freddy," Sabean said. "It's not a very attractive free agent market in my mind."

Do they want the division title next season? Bochy - "Sure. More will be expected out of us. I'd rather have it that way. We had a taste of it this year. we want a bigger taste.

Sabean on Sandoval's weight: "He understands we have to do something to get him into better shape. Some of it's a change in lifestyle. He's saying the right things - changing what you do dietwise on a daily basis."

Sabean said Sandoval will play winter ball. Sabean wants that to be on a limited basis - three weeks or so - so he can spend the rest of the time revising his eating habits and getting into shape.

Is Brad Penny in the Giants plans? Sabean - "It's a possibility but we also have other business at hand. Other than one start what's not to like about what he did?"

On the makeup of the pitching staff: Sabean - "We have some guys who are tough SOBs. Randy Johnson helped with that mindset. Penny came at the end with his bravado. There weren't many position players who would dare half-step that group. This was a tough-minded group of people."

What's with all this anger toward yours truly by some Zohn readers?

I'm talking about my entry about Singletary adjusting how he thanks God after a victory. Many readers expressed anger at me and said I am picking on Singletary. Not true. I praised him. I said he made a reasonable adjustment by saying he was grateful for the win and thanking God for his players and coaches.

I wrote: ". . . that was a nice way to put things."

So how am I bashing the guy?

I think he needed to learn to be more sensitive to people who don't see the world or God like him -- lots of people -- and that it's not a good idea to thank God for wins. And he made a sensible and sensitive adjustment while still giving thanks to the Creator for the people around him. Good for him. 

If readers want to get angry at me please make sure you get angry at the right thing. I was praising Singletary.

I'm off to AT&T Park for the Giants' season-ending press conference with Bochy and Sabean. After that I drive to Harding Park to pick up credentials to the Presidents Cup. Busy Day. Back at you later.

Mike Singletary made an adjustment in his God talk. When he met the media after today's win over the Rams he said, "I'm thankful for the win. I thank God for our coaches and players."

This was an interesting and important adjustment and I'd like to think I led him to it.

He did not thank God for the win. He merely expressed gratitude for the win. He thanked God for the people around him. I think that was a nice way to put things and it keeps him away from the logical inconsistencies of thanking God for a win. Thanking God for a win implies he thinks God favors him over people on the opposing team; it also seems arrogant -- that Singletary is God's favorite.

By what he said today Singletary is laying off the God's favorite stuff. I'm glad I helped him come to a more reasonable perspective and I'm glad he adopted it.

Maybe the 49ers will score 42 points in the second half but based on the first half their offense ain't so hot.

They scored no offensive TDs against a truly bad team. They hardly tried anything that displayed imagination or daring. They scored on some whacked out accident fluke play. But otherwise the Rams are playing them straight up.

Are we supposed to be impressed? To read my column on the 49er offense click here.