Memory wane

Nostalgia is fine, but only in small doses

Have a comment or question for Dr. Z? Click here.

A quick word about nostalgia, memory lane, ain't what it used to be, etc. Walt of Wellsville, N.Y., says he has stuck up for me, "when other friends of mine called you a gruff, single-minded clown who still is living in the 1950's." (Tell them they forgot to mention overweight). Tom of the Bronx says that my nostalgia columns was "awesome." Aaron Nagler of NYC writes, "I love hearing how it used to be ... You are, for me, a link to a better time for the game that I love so dearly ..."

That's me, folks, a gruff, single-minded link. You can't please everybody. Personally, I like reading memory lane pieces if they're well written and the observations, quotes, anecdotes, etc., are fresh. When I see another one of those tired rehash jobs, it just makes me feel sorry for the writer, particularly if he or she is of older vintage. But you can't write nostalgia all the time. It has to be used as a spice.

Maybe Walt's friends are right and I am overusing the old stuff. That observation will make me go back through my work and check. So tell your friends that their comments reached receptive ears, OK, Walt? And then I'll get into the more serious part of your e-mail, namely the rips. And while I have you two guys on the line, let me tell you, Aaron, that your story about seeing me at the NFL draft and how you "wanted so badly to say how much I respected you and your writing, but just couldn't quite work up the gumption," made me very sad and brought tears to the eyes of the Flaming Redhead. "Tell them that you like people to come up to you and chitchat," she said, and I agree with that, the only exception being known terrorists. And if I'm too far away, Aaron, just yell, "Hey Fatso!" and I'll be over.

OK, now that I've won everybody over, let me go to work on the serious rippers. They go under the heading, How Could You Have Forgotten? We're talking about the rating of my all-time top half-dozen teams. Walt's candidates are the '84 and '89 Niners. He calls my No. 6, the '85 Bears, "one-trick ponies," a phrase I really liked and might have to lift someday for future use. Ed, aka Turf, of Narragansett, R.I. -- and thanks for you know what -- also likes the Niners and adds the '90-'94 Bills, and Cowboys of the same era, and Mike of Houston narrows it down to the '92 vintage Cowboys.

All worthy candidates, fellas, and believe me, I did consider them. Also some of the better Giants teams. Also the Colts of the late '50s. Also the Bears of the '40s. I rejected the Bears, even though they had great players at every position and even though they dominated an era because it was an uneven league in those days. It was tipped toward Chicago. George Halas controlled football, much as George Steinbrenner controls baseball nowadays. The level of competition, once you got by some keynoters such as the Packers and Redskins and occasionally the Giants, just wasn't that high. The others were simply beaten out by teams I felt were more deserving. If I had it to do over I might replace the '85 Bears with the '84 Niners (my personal MVP of the '85 Super Bowl, incidentally, was DT Gary "Big Hands" Johnson, for the gut pressure he applied to Marino). But I'm sure that if I had, there would have been just as many angry letters from Bears fans. Their defense was just too good to believe. They crushed everyone. I felt that the team was ordinary in only two areas, at the corners (and enemy passers never had the time to really test them anyway) and at wideout, which didn't really matter, either, since the running game, with Walter Payton and his knock-'em-dead blocker, Matt Suhey, and that great offensive line, was so dominating. Believe me, guys, I have tried to think this through.

As far as the comment from Mike of Houston that the '92 Cowboys would crush the older teams -- '62 Packers, '71 Cowboys, etc. -- this is a very unfair evaluation and one that has no place in rating teams of different eras. The point is that if you'd put some of those older guys in the game today, they'd be bigger and stronger, too, and probably even faster, thanks to weights and steroids and all the sophisticated training methods. Bronko Nagurski, for instance, was a rawboned 238 in the 1930s. Today he'd be a cookboned, well-muscled 270-275 pounder. If you still persist in that argument, Mike, answer me this one: How big would the margin be if the 2001 Carolina Panthers took the field against, say, the 1940 Bears, outweighing them up to 100 pounds a man? Are they a greater team? C'mon now.

Jason of Honolulu, and I thank you for your kind words, wants to know my take on the current baseball situation. My take? Take it away. Let them solve their own problems. A sport in which one team can continually buy championships has lost its punch for me. Put it this way: I used to be an avid fan, Giants, Yankees, and then the Red Sox. As a strong union man, I believe in a worker's right to choose his own workplace, namely free agency, but as a fan ... well, when Pudge Fisk, the heart and soul of the Red Sox, went to Chicago, something died inside me. Oh, I'll still watch baseball, just to see the interesting players perform, but the passion is gone. Part 2, and now we're back to football, deals with my take on the Rams defense and Eric Crouch's chances as a WR. The major change in the St. Louis D is Jamie Duncan for London Fletcher at MLB, so the run defense won't be as good, but the Rams offense will still force opponents into catch-up situations, so it won't be a major problem. As for Crouch, I think he might do OK but not right away. It's not an overnight transition. Incidentally, you mention getting through "the screener known as Jimmy." I'd be careful with the supercilious remarks about Jimmy, if I were you. He is 6-foot-6, 280 pounds. Rides a Harley, wears a helmet and I've seen him crack a walnut with two fingers. I'm saying this for your own protection.

Rob of San Diego disagrees with the Chargers' prospective LB situation, namely Donnie Edwards on the strong side. I don't understand it, either. To me, his value always has been as a good guy in space, perfect for the weak side, and not all that sound at the point. Overall, I'm not quite sure that I agree with you about San Diego's defense being that strong. Jason Fisk is a good player, but the guy he replaces, John Parrella, is exceptional. Thanks for your comments, by the way.

Ditto to Matt of Astoria, N.Y. Ditto for the comments, that is. Oops, slight interruption. Jake the cat has just brought in a mole from outside. Morto, I fear. Decent burial, three-gun salute, a few words said at graveside. We are big on protocol here. What was your question again? Oh yes, he wants my prime example of a fine talent wasted in the wrong system. These things are really tough. Have to go back through all my rosters, and they're grumbling out there that I do too much nostalgia anyway. I always thought the prime example was Jake Plummer mired in Mark Trestman's buttoned-up, don't-choke system, but that's changed now. You mention Barry Sanders. Well, he was effective out of the spread, but I believe the weakness of that arrangement was that he carried too many times for negative yardage. He was just as good on the few occasions in which he ran out of a conventional two-back set.

One good thing about this offseason is that we didn't have to read still another round of "Will Sanders come back or won't he?" stories. This can go on forever, like the Elvis sightings.

Here's a classic non sequitur from Joe of Lakeland, Colo.: "I have two questions, both involving the Broncos. First, I was wondering what your opinion was of ... Fran Tarkenton ..." Huh? Linda, can I really get by on three hours sleep? I mean, what am I missing? Wait a minute. Sorry, Joe. You wanted my take on Tarkenton as a John Elway prototype. You add that no one has ever mentioned Tarkenton's name in connection with Elway's. You can add me to that list. They were completely different types. Elway was multi-faceted, effective as a dropback passer but even more effective throwing for distance and accuracy on the move. Tarkenton was a magician in motion, a guy whose scrambles could cause a defense to lose focus and concentration. Each great in is own way, and thank God we have those variances in style and everyone doesn't look exactly the same, although it's moving closer to that now. You disagree with the idea that Elway carried the Super Bowl teams of the '80s on his back. So do I. A younger Elway, maybe. I always thought he did a great job in the Super Bowl Denver lost to the Giants, particularly in the first half. But as the overall team got really good, Elway became more of a perfect fit than a guy who had to carry the offense.

Thank you, Joe, for that very kind last paragraph in your e-mail.

Another word from Tom of the Bronx, where I lived from age six to nine. Kingsbridge and University, right near the armory. Went to P.S. 86. Tom wonders if there's a place for a comprehensive Jets history book with me as the author (and I thank him for his support). There have been lots of them, none of which particularly gripped me. I did one on a single season, 1973. It was called The Last Season of Weeb Ewbank and it was kind of a downer. An artistic success, the reviewers said, but a commercial disaster. You can find it on one of those book search sites on the 'net. Sure, I'd do a Jets history if some publisher approached me with big $$$. The way my AOL stock has tanked I'd be crazy not to.

Aaron of NYC, the star of the column so far, throws in a quick query about how Brett Favre will do throwing to Terry Glenn. I've written this before, but I think it'll work. Favre can always use another deep threat, and Glenn would be nuts to let this opportunity slide since he might never get another one this good. But he's unpredictable, a euphemism for screwy.

To Michael of Arcadia, Calif.: I thank you and the Flaming Redhead thanks you for your nice sentiments. You want to know if I'd vote for Terrell Davis for the Hall of Fame, assuming he doesn't do much from now on. Well, seven seasons in the league, four of them productive. Will four seasons cut it? I hate to keep using this familiar cop-out, but it remains a very important guiding factor -- it depends on who he comes up with. He's on the bubble. If the other candidates are too strong that year, he won't make it. And vice versa. My own vote would follow the same line.

Finally Steve of Green Bay, Wis., wants an update on Ed McCaffrey's rehab. Supposedly going OK, but I've seen too many of these supposedly successful rehabs that aren't really so at all. Fingers crossed. He's one of my favorite players. He made my all-pro team a couple of years ago.

Have a comment or question for Dr. Z? Click here.

 

Related information

Multimedia

Visit Video Plus for the latest audio and video