Skelton 1, Kolb 0

Yep. That's about right.

All of our fears about Kevin Kolb were realized in the first 15 minutes of the preseason. The biggest of which has nothing to do with performance. It has to do with the ability to stay on a football field.

Concerns about Kolb have morphed from "is he good enough" to "can he stay upright long enough". Last night's chest injury is merely the latest example and an unfortunate metaphor for the big picture problem facing Kolb. The pick was bad. The injury worse.

Some will say I'm questioning Kolb's toughness; his willingness to play through the injuries that have plagued him over the last calendar year. Not at all. As Mike Sando pointed out on his ESPN NFC West blog, Kolb would have been a fool for playing through a concussion late last year and it was pointless to gut it out during a silly preseason game. Ken Whisenhunt correctly pointed out that it irrational to make judgments this early in the process.

But the facts remain. He's played in a little more than half of the games in his Cardinals tenure. And once again, as Sando notes, this is the fourth consecutive preseason or regular season that an injury has knocked out Kolb.

I will say this though; at the start of camp the NFL Network's Willie McGinest suggested that the players he was talking to in the Cardinals locker room favored Skelton over Kolb. While this report was dismissed as hooey, I thought at the time that - hypothetically, if it were true - it was in part because the players may view Skelton was able (notice I did not write "willing") to absorb the punishment in ways that Kolb would seem to struggle with.

Either way, the smile on Skelton's face was obvious every time the cameras cut to him Sunday night. He knows his candidacy took a step forward with his steady play during the TD drive. And in a moment that some may consider revelatory and some will describe as merely interesting, as Kolb was gingerly walking off the field, Skelton approached him to give him a high five. Kolb left him hanging. The pain of yet another injury and a night gone horribly wrong was apparently just too much to bear.

"What happens at Lumberjack Stadium stays in Lumberjack Stadium."

It wasn't a misplaced Vegas reference. Instead, Clark Haggans said it Wednesday night, trying to describe the intensity of the Cardinals night practice. Physical. Intense. Lot of trash being talked. The Cardinals have reached that point in camp where they've grown tired of each other, and frankly, I agree. We're all ready for the games to start. Players are ready; they want to beat on someone else. Fans are ready; by now we all understand we're never going to answer the "big question" at quarterback based on practice.

Neither Kevin Kolb nor John Skelton has yet to distinguish themselves after one week of practice. Is it

A. Because it's been one week, stupid (likely answer)
B. Neither guy is a distinguishable quarterback (scary answer) or
C. The Cards defense is so good, it's impossible to use practice to judge them (sneaky answer that is the focus of this blog)

The talk Thursday in Flagstaff after last night was about the defense and just how far ahead it (any really defense) is over the offense at this stage in camp. A cliché to be sure, but clearly that's where the Cardinals are at. I don't believe that's the reason why the QB competition is a stalemate but it doesn't help when the talent is concentrated on the other side of the ball.

I remember at one point last year suggesting the very identity of the Cardinals was changing before our eyes. The glory years (you know….all two of them) of putting up huge offensive numbers with Warner and Fitz and Q and Breaston are gone, replaced with a defense that's like a good dark beer: Stout. This team's very soul may lie in players like Campbell and Dockett. Washington and Acho. Peterson and his healthy ego (second-best corner in the league Patrick, really?).

Gambo and I debated on Thursday whether this new identity was born by default (Gambo) or by design (me). In truth it hardly matters; this is how it is. These aren't two elite quarterbacks fighting it out on the fields of Flagstaff. The thunder and lightning backfield of Beanie Wells and Ryan Williams could go boom, could go bust. Michael Floyd won't be Anquan Boldin on day one.

Now, I'm not trying to trivialize who wins the gig between Kolb and Skelton. It's still the most important position in all of sports. Just understand, no matter who gets the nod on September 9th against Seattle, the reality is that the Cardinals will likely win football games just as they did last year; thanks to their defense and special teams. Should that assumption come to fruition, follow it with another: Ray Horton is gone, off to find fame and fortune as the coach of (insert team here).

Worry about that later. The hope is that a QB emerges that is able to make enough plays to play to the defensive strength of the team. Figuring out who that is starts in earnest on Sunday.

Something like...

"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." -Robert F. Kennedy

or

"Only those who risk going too far can possibly find out how far they can go." -T.S. Eliot

And my personal favorite,

"You can't steal second base and keep your foot on first." -Frederick Wilcox

That's IF I were in favor of trading Upton. I'm not. Trading the mysterious and talented Mr. Upton would be an incredible mistake for precisely the reason why I included the quotes.

I wouldn't make the trade out of fear of failure. Fear that Upton's emergence would happen for some other team. That simply cannot happen and it would be foolish for the D-backs to take that risk.

Maybe I can't steal second with my foot on first but I'm not getting thrown out either.

If you're the Diamondbacks and you get this wrong, your fan base would never forgive you for it. Josh Byrnes (did I say Josh Byrnes-I meant Jeff Moorad) was never able to live down the Eric Byrnes extension. Kevin Towers would experience that wrath times ten if he were to trade Upton just in time for Upton to blossom.

I just can't see the bounty they'd receive in return as worth the risk. Honestly I don't think it's even close.

In the hours since the news of Steve Nash to the Los Angeles Lakers (and oh by the way here's a Darren Rovell twitpic to really turn your stomach), I haven't been able to hold a thought in my head without it being replaced by another, and another, and another. It's like trying to catch a mouse that has snuck into your house. Every time I think I have it cornered it slips away.

So instead of one thought, I'll give you a stream-of- consciousness-type column that hopefully by the end, will have produced a clear what-do-I-think epiphany of the biggest story of the decade.

I am at The Amazing Spider Man when I see the tweet. That completely unnecessary reboot (Emma Stone is awfully pretty though) will always be associated with THE DAY THE SUNS TRADED STEVE NASH TO THE LAKERS. My co-host broke the news, but I when tell my 14-year-old son about it I add "I sure hope he's wrong." To which the wise young man reminds me it was bad for the show if Gambo was wrong. I respond by saying today I didn't care.

Once it was clear Gambo was right, I am literally queasy. The medium popcorn and dollar refill of Coke is churning. It was shock. Anxiety. Disbelief.

I read today that, according to Nash's agent, Nash briefly contemplated retiring from the NBA. As I walked out of the Harkins San Tan, I briefly contemplate renouncing my citizenship from Planet Orange, like some kind of a Cuban defector ("I seek political asylum with the Oklahoma City Thunder").

I try to focus my emotions. Who am I upset at? Nash for wanting this? Or the Suns for enabling it?

I thought about those words that brought me comfort a week ago: "I think it would be hard to put on a Lakers jersey." When Nash said that to an ESPN radio station in New York, it brought peace. I feel lied to. Flat out, straight up lied to.

But wait. It takes two. How could the Suns do this to Suns fans? How could they have so little knowledge or interest in just how much WE HATE THE LAKERS? I thought of the old radio adage; know your audience. Clearly, I thought, the law firm of Sarver, Babby and Blanks doesn't know theirs.

Keep in mind, this was all before I left the parking lot. Deep breath. Take the emotion out of it. Think rationally. Take the information that was given, cover the word "Lakers" with my thumb, and evaluate the move……ok, heart rate slowing down. Telling myself at least they got something for him. Somebody tweeted me and suggested that the picks could be used as part of a deal to the Hornets as part of a sign and trade for Eric Gordon. Ok, that's good too. I feel normalcy envelop me.

Then I remember that sports is emotion. Take the emotion out of it? I'm not a friggin' robot. I remember what I told Jon Bloom after the Suns drafted Kendall Marshall; when it comes to the Suns, I'm irrational. I don't run and hide from that.

No -- the angel on my right shoulder whispers in my ear -- sports is a business and all that happened today was a business transaction. Then another tweeter reminds me that sports are merely entertainment, like the movies, and with Nash in L.A. I've got another reason to loathe that team. The badder the bad guy, the better the story (it's the reason why Die Hard is one of the best action flicks ever).

Then the devil on my left shoulder chimes in by coming up with the analogy that, in a sports sense, my wife just left me for my best friend. Or even worse, my most-hated business rival. I can feel myself falling into an abyss. Now I've got so many thoughts swirling around that I have to ask my wife to drive to the D-backs game so I can think. And tweet.

I think about the Suns and wonder if four picks and three million bucks are worth alienating half of your fan base. And really, let's be honest about the value of those picks. Second round picks in the NBA remind me of signs that you see that read "Dirt for sale." Late first round picks are nothing more than putting all your money on one number at a roulette table. Did the Suns really get anything for Nash?

A friend compares the deal to the day the team traded Dennis Johnson for Rick Robey. I cried that day, have I ever told you that? I think of the day Charles Barkley did a nationally televised interview with NBC (halftime of Game 1 of the NBA Finals between the Sonics and Bulls) all but demanding he be traded from the Suns. I start comparing those three kicks to the midsection to judge which hurt the worse.

I think that given his love of filmmaking both in front of and behind the camera, I think that L.A. is a perfect place for Nash. And besides, what NBA player doesn't want to play for the Lakers?

I go to bed mad as hell.

I woke up with new perspective and new information.

Nash, we found out, was desperate to stay close to his family. He's only an hour away, his agent says. That, while playing on a contender, means everything to him. Reading Nash's statement and the gratitude he expresses to Robert Sarver ("couldn't be more grateful" and "says a lot about his character") and I feel my stance softening.

In addition to signing Gordon to the big offer sheet (smelling sign and trade with Hornets), the Suns have added Michael Beasley and Goran Dragic. They're going to be interesting next year (I didn't say good, I said interesting).

Then I think about my own hypocrisy. I've been upset with the Suns for years for not dealing Nash sooner in the name of getting something for him sooner. I'm going to complain now that they did what I wanted them to do all along? That seems a little unfair. Then I think about Sarver and his reputation, not among the fans but among the players of the NBA. That rep took a hit during the lockout. Did he just get some cred back for acquiescing to Nash's wish? ("Hey, everything you heard about me was untrue…did you see what I did for Nash?") If they can walk away with Eric Gordon, I'll be impressed. Maybe even pleased.

I'm about to get in the car and drive to the station and I'm sure five more thoughts will pop into my head.

How do I feel about Nash to the Lakers? You didn't expect an answer did you?

In "Back to the Future 2" - perhaps one of the worst sequels I have ever sat through - Marty McFly goes 30 years into the future and is stunned to see the way things will be.

On Thursday night, separated by only a couple of hours, we revved up the Flux Capacitor and took a trip ourselves. Suns draft pick Kendall Marshall is a nostalgic look into the past. D-backs phenom Trevor Bauer is a curious vision of the future.

The Suns drafted Marshall to be their point guard of the future while staunchly insisting his selection doesn't necessarily mean the departure of Steve Nash. Maybe not, but it sure feels like goodbye. One day Marshall will be the starting point guard of the Suns. Whether that day is in two weeks or two years, who knows. But we know this: Marshall is old school all the way. Like dial-up internet and the VCR.

A tough minded, pass-first-shoot-later distributor. The selfless leader type who thrives on getting others involved. The hash tag on his twitter account reads #PassFir5t. Roy Williams called him the best passer he's ever coached. Once upon a time a point guard like that was once a pillar of the NBA.

Russell Westbrook he ain't. Marshall lacks great athleticism and isn't a lights-out shooter. Jay Bilas described the lottery's other point guard, Damian Lillard, as being in range the moment he is in the gym. Jeff Van Gundy joked that if the Suns keep Nash, they'll have two guards who can't guard the dribble so it should work out just fine.

Is there still a place in today's NBA for a point guard like Marshall or is he an anachronism? The answer to that may lie in the players that surround him. What good is a pass first point guard if he has no one elite to pass to? Or is he so good that he'll make the players around him better? A point guard like that might serve as a magnet to players who don't want to worry about sharing their shots with a guy like Westbrook.

Bauer, on the other hand, is from another planet. Ignore for a moment how he pitches and just focus on the way he warms up. He stretches, runs, jumps, works out with a giant rubber band, and of course, engages in the crazy foul pole to foul pole session of long toss. The one that requires a cutoff man just to get the ball back to him. Oh yeah, and that crow hop warm-up pitch he throws behind the mound before each inning.

Once the game starts, he throws nine or ten different pitches; all sorts of variations on his curve, slider and something he calls a reverse slider.

Bauer's debut wasn't as smooth as hoped. It was like the grand finale of a Fourth of July fireworks show that wasn't all that grand ("is that all?"). Four innings and 74 pitches later it was over. Maybe he is from another planet but he's still just a kid; I'm sure he was a little jittery so I won't be too hard on him. (We discovered after the game that he has dealing with a groin issue from the third inning on-factor that in with the 50 pitches he threw just a few days ago and enough was enough). But the walks, the pitch count, all the things that can be a little concerning about Bauer showed up Thursday night.

In direct contrast, Patrick Corbin came into the game and put on a Crash Davis-inspired display of old school pitching, inducing six very democratic groundballs in his three innings of work. Because strikeouts are boring and fascist, right Crash?

Maybe not entirely, but surely the Diamondbacks would like Bauer to pitch to contact more often. Does Bauer need to introduce a little typical into his atypical ways in order to succeed? Or does he know something the rest of us don't? My guess is the D-backs will give him plenty of room to be Trevor Bauer. Doing things his way has worked awfully well for him up to this point.

A glimpse into the past. A view of the future. Which will make for the better movie remains to be seen.

Others saw it as well, including J.A. Adande of ESPN.

These Finals have not gone down easy for the former ASU star. In four games he's made 13 baskets, been called for 16 fouls and turned the ball over nine times. Some have had the audacity to suggest it's time to shave the beard. Even worse than that; you've heard more than one comparison to Harden's similar deficiency during ASU's 2009 postseason.

In the Pac-10 Championship game (a loss to USC) and the first two games of the NCAA Tournament (win vs. Temple, loss to Syracuse), Harden shot a combined 6-27 and averaged just under 10 points per game. The USC game recap says he missed a free throw, a layup and a three-pointer in the final 50 seconds, a fact that I can't recall but…well…whatever. The Thunder had a similar lack of concern about Harden; they drafted him third overall and his NBA career has been a success story ever since.

The fact is, I am still firmly entrenched in the Harden- to-Phoenix camp. The concept is a two-pronged question. Could it happen? Should it happen?

It could. With the large extensions doled out to Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook, the Thunder may have to choose between Harden and Serge Ibaka a year from now. It might be a tough choice, it might be a non-issue; as Jim Traber suggested to us a week ago, OKC could amnesty Kendrick Perkins in an attempt to afford to keep both Harden and Ibaka. Both could take less to keep the band together. I'll admit; the idea that Harden is available in a year is, at best, a shaky hypothetical.

The "should it happen" question has grown increasingly difficult to answer with what we've seen in the Finals. Is Harden a max money player? The performances in these four games say no. Everything else says yes and I'm still a believer. Suns coach Alvin Gentry said a couple of months ago that Harden might be the third best two-guard in the NBA behind only Kobe and Dwyane Wade.

Later that night Harden lit up the Suns to the tune of a 40-point performance.

Harden is hardly the first player to shrink in his first NBA Finals. LeBron pulled a Rick Moranis last year but is now poised to win the Finals MVP. Players learn, evolve and grow, and there's no reason to think Harden won't use these Finals as a springboard for just that.

Where he lands, nobody knows. But if it's Phoenix, that's just fine with me.

Surely by now you know the importance of May 14th as it relates to last year's 94-win, NL West champion team. It's practically a holiday for team employees and was mentioned prominently during Monday's broadcast. But just in case...

On May 14th last year, the Arizona Diamondbacks were meandering their way through a 15-22 start. Since so little was expected of Kirk Gibson's squad, the local outrage barely measured a decibel. Everything was going according to plan...the D-backs weren't any good. On that May 14th, frankly, they weren't that great either; after all, they were one-hit by the Dodgers' Chad Billingsley. But Josh Collmenter formally introduced himself to D-backs fans, Arizona scratched out a run on a sac fly and from that moment on the magic carpet ride was in full effect.

From that day forward, the D-backs would win 15 of their next 17 games. The rest is, well, history. It makes for a terrific story and there is no denying its part in the DNA of last year's squad.

Fast forward a year. The D-backs are, once again, meandering, this time though through a season where the expectation bar was set much higher. That fact alone changes the equation. Instead of silence, a 15-20 start has left the masses questioning, concerned and demanding.

So it stands to reason that the same team with an oddly similar record playing the same team on the same day at least provides hope that it can be done again. A wonderful coincidence that makes for a fine talking point.

The problem with this particular history lesson is while it certainly can happen again, it doesn't explain why it will happen again. Or how it will happen again. It merely serves as a friendly reminder to be patient: Everything will be fine, it all worked out, we'll fix it just like we did last year.

Just for fun, I looked up May 14th from the 2010 season, otherwise known as the last days of A.J. Ironically, that May 14th was something of a watershed moment as well. They lost to the Braves to fall to 14-22 on the year, only slightly worse than the record they sport now (but it's worth noting that the 2010 and 2012 D-backs were both 8.5 games out of first on May 14th). That bunch won six of their next eight games to pull to within four games of .500 only to collapse in a heap of losses. Ten straight to be exact. A.J. Hinch and Josh Byrnes would lose their jobs a month later. May 14, 2010 was nothing more than a rest stop on the road to ruin.

What does it mean? Nothing, and that's the point. History will teach us nothing. This day a year ago, two years ago, isn't going to help Justin Upton to lay off the outside breaking pitch or J.J. Putz locate his split-finger fastball. It isn't going to bring Chris Young or Stephen Drew or Daniel Hudson back off the DL any faster than before. It won't resurrect the Paul Goldschmidt or Ryan Roberts of 2011. It isn't going to help Ian Kennedy purposely plunk Clayton Kershaw in retaliation, something he failed to do...twice. To his credit, Upton has said as much. Last year is last year, let's quit talking about it.

The history lesson is over. Let's move on to current events.

Saving Private Ryan. Raiders of the Lost Ark. The Silence of the Lambs. You may say I'm sitting on a fence; I like to think of it as having options. I can go summer popcorn action flick, a serious war/technically brilliant classic or violent, extremely well-acted thriller. Depends on my mood.

And, much like me and my movies, the Arizona Cardinals will have options on draft day, three of which I'll gladly rubber stamp as THE RIGHT MOVE. I'm writing this under the assumption that at least one of these three will be available at #13 and that the Cardinals will take one of these players. Should the Cardinals go off script and draft someone outside of my top three, I reserve the right to rip the pick or to view it as an unconsidered fourth great option (much like I consider Shawshank Redemption as my fourth-favorite movie).

Option 1: Michael Floyd, WR, Notre Dame

Full disclosure…of the three options the Cardinals have, Floyd is the one I would estimate to be gone baby gone by the time the Cardinals pick. Hearing Mark May describe his abilities the other day was like listening to a scouting report on Anquan Boldin. Big, tough, physical, uses his body. He's May's choice. He's Ron Jaworski's pick. He's coveted by none other than fellow Minnesotan Larry Fitzgerald. And that is good enough for me. Even though he's doesn't address the offensive line concerns make no mistake; it's a need. No one will blame the Cardinals one bit for drafting a stud WR to pair with their stud WR.

Option 2: Riley Reiff, OT, Iowa

Reiff was once thought to be a sure-fire top 10 pick, most likely by the Buffalo Bills. But in the opinions of some, he has slipped. Some think his arms are too short or he's not athletic enough. Some think the media love him but the NFL scouts do not. And some believe the entire tackle position is over-valued in a league that is moving to more three-step drops and quick releases. Yet some compare him to another former Iowa lineman, Bryan Bulaga, who slipped in the draft and is now one of the better right tackles in football with the Packers. He clearly fits a need for the Cards which makes him the comfy pick. Given that he was considered a top-ten guy just a few weeks ago, he strikes me as the one tackle who wouldn't be much of a reach at #13. All the other tackles are and taking one of them is a guaranteed rip job by yours truly.

Option 3: Melvin Ingram, DE, South Carolina

This is the bold move. High risk, high reward. Right now I can hear a disgruntled voice in my head (and oddly it sounds like Gambo's) and it goes something like this: "We don't need another pass rusher. We have Acho. We have Schofield. Fix what's broken." While it's true the Cardinals have more immediate needs than adding another pass rusher, and certainly the lack of a second round pick on augments that, in my world you can never, ever have enough guys who can get to the quarterback. Ever. Pop quiz: Who won the Super Bowl? The Giants. What do they have a bunch of? Oh yeah…guys who can rush the quarterback. What I'd hate to see is the regret that comes with knowing you could have had an elite pass rusher but took a pass. Terrell Suggs anyone?

Ian Kennedy and Daniel Hudson were both effective but hardly dominating in their first starts. Josh Collmenter has some work to do, and given the talent behind him in the minors, he'd best do it fast.

Last night against the Padres, Trevor Cahill couldn't harness any of his pitches. Yes, he only gave up a run and two hits in his six innings, but with six walks and five strikeouts he gave new meaning to the phrase "effectively wild". As Nick Piecoro of the Republic noted during the game, Cahill's sinker had so much movement even he didn't know where it was going...let alone the Padre hitters.

My point though, is that despite the rough-around-the- edges rotation so far, the Diamondbacks are the only National League team without a loss (only Detroit is undefeated in the AL — the two teams Ken Rosenthal picked to meet in the World Series...just sayin'). I think Hudson and Kennedy will be fine. Collmenter? Cahill? Wednesday's starter Joe Saunders? To me, that's the key to this season for the D-backs.

And that's what scares me.

Half the time you walk out of a movie like that trying to figure out exactly what movie they were watching when they gave it two thumbs up.

Like many, I'm picking the Diamondbacks to win the West. But that fact doesn't mean I don't have legit questions about this team; the answers to which may well determine if they will win the West. Here are nine of them:

Tell me who are you (are you, ooh ooh, ooh ooh)?

Who is Ryan Roberts? Is he a 19 HR/.768 OPS guy again this season? Or was that the very definition of a career year? Who is Aaron Hill? In 33 games with the Diamondbacks he hit .315/.386/.878 and was a huge part of the push for the playoffs late in the season. Asking them both to do it again feels like asking for too much.

Rubik's Kubel

I'll be curious to see how Kirk Gibson solves the nightly puzzle of his one-man-too-many outfield. Pressure is on Jason Kubel to produce; to prove that his acquisition at the expense of Gold Glover Gerardo Parra was worth it. He'll hear about it if he doesn't.

First Base from A (Allen) to Z (Zinter)

With apologies to anyone I may have forgotten…..since Mark Grace retired Allen, Baerga, Branyan, Clark, Colbrunn, Easley, Green, Hammock, Jackson, LaRoche, Mayne, Miranda, Mora, Nady, Overbay, Reynolds, Ryal, Sexson, Snyder, Tracy, Whitesell and Zinter all have given it a go over at 1B. Here's hoping the wheel of misfortune stops with Paul Goldschmidt.

Here's to your health

For lack of a better word, the D-backs were lucky last year. Other than Stephen Drew's gruesome ankle injury and J.J. Putz spending a few weeks on the DL, the Snakes enjoyed a relatively healthy season. It seems almost impossible that they'll repeat that good fortune. The question then becomes do they possess the depth to withstand a significant loss.

Catcher in the bye

If reports are true that Miguel Montero is in search of a contract similar to the $50 million Victor Martinez received from the Tigers, then this could very well be his final season here. Can't see the D-backs giving him that much coin. Trouble is there aren't a ton of other options in the minors. Acquiring a catcher, perhaps in exchange for the surplus of starting pitching prospects, should be a top priority.

Getting out your regression

Based on his age and the fact he threw significantly more innings than the previous year, SI.com's Tom Verducci has pegged Daniel Hudson as a candidate for injury or regression. D-backs fans better hope that Verducci's formula is flawed when it comes to the "2" in the D-backs 1-2 pitching punch.

The man-child is now The Man

Justin Upton, seemingly, has arrived as a perennial MVP candidate. I'm actually picking him to win the award this year. He needs to have a spectacular year in order for the D-backs to repeat.

A sinking feeling

In reading the USA Today's MLB preview, an anonymous scout mentioned there was no sink to Trevor Cahill's sinker and it appeared he was throwing a BP fastball. Earlier in the spring, Ken Rosenthal of Fox Sports reported some around baseball were curious why Billy Beane would be so willing to trade a young, cost-controlled starter like Cahill. In other words, what did he see wrong that others didn't? I liked the deal then and I still like it now. The D-backs gave up a young promising starter in Jarrod Parker to win now with Cahill. That's exactly what he needs to do.

People will come Ray

Will they? This team overachieved last year and then went over budget to try and do it again. During a year of such hype and such promise here's hoping the D-backs and their fans, deliver.