Yes, I know this would be where the NFC Report would go, but honestly the only interesting thing in the NFL this week is that Patriots-Colts matchup you might have heard of (and which Ben will cover tomorrow), so it's time for a little NBA preview. So let's look at a few of the storylines that are running through this season.

Who can unseat the Spurs?

Here are your choices if you'd like to see someone other than Tim Duncan holding up the Larry O'Brien Trophy: Phoenix, Dallas, or Utah. Phoenix came close last year, and if not for a cheap shot to Steve Nash's nose and some silly decision making by Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw, they might have won that series. Still, it feels like the window for the Suns is closing, rapidly. Shawn Marion's griping could be an issue, and they dealt away Kurt Thomas for nothing. Steve Nash is still the best point guard out there, and as long as he's in the lineup they can make things happen.

Dallas is obviously dealing with the emotional baggage from last year's first-round collapse, but they did beat the Spurs in the West Finals in 2005, so it's clearly possible. They can spread the Spurs out defensively and shoot over them, and obviously Nowitzki is a very tough matchup for anyone.

Utah is more of a gamble, obviously, but they've got the talent to give the Spurs all kinds of trouble. Carlos Boozer is the second-best low-post player in the West, Deron Williams is emerging as one of the best point guards in the league, and Mehmet Okur can stretch the defense with his outside shooting. The big X-factor is Andrei Kirilenko. Yes, he's having issues with Jerry Sloan, and his play has been declining a bit over the last few years, but he is one of the few guys who can cause problems on the perimeter with his athleticism and can play defense on Ginobili.

Where is Kobe going?

I've been saying for years that Chicago is the most likely destination for Kobe should the Lakers trade him, and they still appear to be the odds-on favorite. The hold up is Luol Deng: the Lakers want him, the Bulls want to keep him, and Kobe wants to play with him.

The entire subject of Chicago trading for Kobe raises questions about how you win a title in this day and age. Certainly, the last 30 years of basketball seem to indicate that to win a championship you need at least one superstar. Only one team in that time frame has won without one: the 2004 Detroit Pistons. So far, the Bulls have done an excellent job of assembling a good young team which should remain competitive for years. The question is, can a team like that win a title?

I tend to think not. One of the weaknesses of this Chicago team is an inability to win close games. Now, Kobe isn't some magic panacea for this problem, but he does give them a clear focus late in games. For the last few years, Ben Gordon was that guy in Chicago, but he's not really good enough. Now, Deng is emerging as perhaps the option, but perhaps it's better to trade for the sure thing instead of waiting to see if Deng (or someone else) becomes it.

How good will the Celtics be?

I'm not buying into the NBA Finals hype. Kevin Garnett is legitimately one of the best 5-10 players in the league, but both Paul Pierce and Ray Allen are living off their reputation to some extent. Neither guy is all that efficient, and of course teaming them up raises the question of how the shots will be distributed. Furthermore, Allen particularly is a miserable perimeter defender. The only year the Sonics went to the playoffs with him is when Antonio Daniels turned into a lockup defender, as every other year Allen's weakness (combined with Rashard Lewis) gave back a lot of the advantage earned on the offensive end.

This Celtics team is going to be good, and they could be the best team in the East. still, the window of opportunity is this year and next. None of their three best players is improving, and Allen and Garnett might be declining (mostly due to nagging injuries). This was a move that had to be made in order to make the team relevant again, but that doesn't mean it will pay off.

Ok, so who else is worth watching in the East?

Forget the Cavaliers. Last year was a fluke, and until they can surround LeBron with more talent they're going to be overtaken by several other teams in the East, namely New Jersey, Chicago, and a surprise. I've already talked about the Bulls, so let's look at the Nets.

Jason Kidd had an all-time great season last year, something that he's done several times in the past. It's amazing that a guy who can not shoot at all has become one of the best 5-6 point guards in NBA history. Despite leading New Jersey to a pair of Finals trips earlier this decade, Kidd has become something of an afterthought in the league, which is a shame, considering he's the only player on Steve Nash's level right now, matching him in passing prowess and surpassing him defensively. Vince Carter is yet another overrated high-volume scorer, but he's certainly explosive. Richard Jefferson seems redundant with Carter on the roster, and I'm tired of waiting for him to live up to Ben's hype (and to stay healthy). Nenad Krstic, however, might be the real deal. Sure, he looks like a pipe cleaner with crappy facial hair, but he puts the ball in the basket. With a bevy of big bodies to surround him with, the Nets are a dangerous squad.

Why is Gilbert Arenas so awesome?

It's all about attitude, like my dad (or maybe that was some generic Little League coach) used to say. In this day and age, most athletes act like the fans don't exist. Oh sure, they give lip service to the people who, in a convoluted sense, pay their salaries, but they'd just as soon play in an empty gym (or not at all, as long as they're getting paid). The few who do seem to care are mostly angry (think Ron Artest) or Canadian (Nash). Sure, Shaq is funny, and enjoyable, but too much of what he does seems carefully constructed, almost as if someone got to him after the forgettable Kazaam/Shaq-Fu days and said "let's think about this for a sec." Not Arenas, who seems more real than anyone else in the Association. It's not enough to say that we'd like to believe that we'd be like Gil if we made the League, it's just that there doesn't seem to be much of a boundary between Agent Zero and the rest of us. He's the kind of guy who'd buy you a beer if you found him in a bar, or would talk trash at you while playing Halo 3. Most of all, he seems to embrace that always-alluring dualism: he loves being famous but has a whole mess of unresolved childhood issues. Plus he's pretty good at hoop.

What happens to the Sonics?

On the court? Not much good, besides seeing Kevin Durant develop. Off it? I'm actually more sanguine than I've been since the team was sold. The city, and the state, seem to be rallying around the idea of finding a solution to the arena issue, and the court system doesn't appear to be letting the team leave before the lease is up. There's a long way to go, but for now things appear to be heading in the right direction.

Which is good, because the basketball side of things is looking real positive. The team will struggle this year, but they've assembled several talented young players, and with five first round picks in the next three years they'll be positioned to add several more. Plus, new GM Sam Presti gives Seattle perhaps its smartest GM to date (not that competing with Bill Bavasi is that hard).

So who wins it all?

The Spurs. Sorry, it's boring, but the truth usually is.