QB or not QB

Does the class of '82 really trump '02? That was the question

Jimmy is too polite to mention something like this, so it is up to me to drop this humble request on you. Could you please limit the e-mail questions to one topic apiece? Some of them contain three or even four, one or two that might require research. Which means that the topics to be answered could be pushing 70 or 80 by the time they're all sorted. And as you know, I answer everything Jimmy sees fit to serve up on his tray. And then the Flaming Redhead yells down to me, "Are you still working on your mailbag?" and I yell up, "Go to sleep and leave me alone!" and next day it's the old grumpy face routine, and all of you know what that's like.

OK, I admit that this one-topic deal sounds too much like that hated airline policy of only one carry-on bag, so we'll stretch it a bit and say one long one or two if they're both easy, such as "What's your favorite flower?" or, "Were you born nasty or did the world make you that way?"

My first answer will be to the toughest question of the week, actually of the last two weeks, since I had to delay my reply while I checked with a few people to make sure my observations were correct.

Conrad of Oceanside, Calif., and I'll bet that you're a coach, Conrad, wanted to know if a West Coast offense necessitates zone blocking. And if so, why? And would a man-on-man blocking scheme work in a West Coast offense? If not, why not?

Zone blocking, or what I call area blocking, is more suited, I believe, to big, fat mushers, such as the Dallas linemen. In man blocking, you have to be able to hit a moving target, and I think that's also the essence of the Walsh Offense, which you have cited by a different name. Ergo, man blocking is more suited to WO teams. As you pointed out, Dallas has had trouble this season, when called upon to adjust to a man-blocking scheme. I think that's because the defenses are giving those fatsos lots of movement to worry about, and they're often unable to cope with it. Now, someone could say, well, Denver always has smaller, more mobile linemen, and they're effective with both the zone and man blocking concepts. The Denver system is based on reach blocking, plus the ability to move laterally and hit targets. But when the Broncos have problems, it's usually because bigger, more powerful D-linemen come straight at them and make them stay at home and stand firm. That's what happened in the the wild-card playoff game two years ago, when Baltimore's big tackles, Siragusa and Adams, broke down the center of the pocket.

Now that I've put everyone to sleep, let me address queries about my 1982 vs. 2002 quarterbacks chart. To Mike of Parker, Colo. (Or is it Mike Parker of Colorado? Sometimes these things get confusing): Thanks for your nice thoughts. Yes, I've read Robert Heinlein, usually as part of science fiction anthologies, and I enjoy his stuff. You ever read any H.P. Lovecraft? I hear some grumbling out there. "What's all this to do with the QB chart?" Hey, shaddup already! I'm talking to Mike, OK? Anyway, he detected a note of indifference toward Peyton Manning and wants to know why. And also wants to know if the Colts are going to win the AFC South. My feelings about Peyton, who I like as a person, were not indifference but lingering disappointment that he had to ask the league if he could wear the black shoes. This says more about me, and my rather juvenile habit of not being able to let go of irrelevant things, than about Manning. Preseason, I liked Tennessee in the division. Now I like Indy, but respect Jacksonville. I guess that touches all the bases, except the one in Houston, but if, for some unexplained reason, the Texans come on with a rush, then I'll add them to my tap dance routine.

To Rick of Tampa: Thanks for your loyalty. You feel that the 1982 guys had the edge because they had more time to work with one coordinator. I agree, although it would take a massive research project to compare the longevity of coordinators in that era versus this one. Now we're into Brad Johnson, and from there we progress to a rather comprehensive analysis of the Bucs. See that, it's always yes, but ... yes, I want to talk about QBs, but here's part two, followed by three, four and five. OK, this is still Good Guy Week. As a Tampian (Is that correct? A Tampan? I'm resisting the urge to say something smutty because it would never get by the Hayes Office), as a whatever people from Tampa are called, you have done a more careful study of your team than I have. I can only offer quick reflections, although I'll know a lot more after Sunday's game. Alstott, coming out of the mothballs as a late-game hammer against a team that's suspect against the run? Well, that's a perfect way to use him, although he might not be happy about it and you wonder if it's really by design or by accident. Johnson makes me nervous. He looks fine for a while, but I still get the feeling that he could blow up at any time. Brooks keys their defense. Last year he played hurt and the defense suffered. Now he's good again, not as good as he was a few years ago, but still one of the better OLBs in the league. You're right, the overall D looks faster. I predicted an upset over Philly. I could be wrong.

Support for Johnson comes from Chris of Slinger, Wisc., who feels that when he has settled down with one coordinator for a while he'd be able to win the mano a mano against Doug Williams on my chart any time. Sure, I'll give him a year. Even two. We'll see.

Marshall of Tucson agrees with me about the downfield throwers of 1982 compared to the dinkers of today, but he wants to know why the coaches have gone this way. Because Bill Walsh was successful with it in San Francisco and the residue -- and it's got to be the third-longest residue in history, after the advent of the T-formation and the 4-3 defense -- is still being felt. Walsh was lucky, though, because he had perhaps the greatest quarterback in history at perfectly timing the slant or crossing pattern, which turned a six-yard gain into plus-40. No one today does it like Montana did, although Warner comes ... make that came ... close, so what you see is the receiver having to slow down ever so slightly for the ball, or reach back for it, and the long gain is nullified. Yes, Rich Gannon throws it well, too.

Fifth query about the QBs, and that's a wrap. Paul of Ithaca, N.Y., says that I held off on Joey Harrington vs. Gary Danielson because it was rookie against vet, but had no problems giving the rookie Jim McMahon the edge over Jim Miller. Well, you see it's like this: When both guys are named Jim, it's signals off and anything goes. OK, I'll settle down. First of all, Danielson wasn't as good as McMahon. Secondly, even as a rookie, McMahon had mature numbers, and by that I mean more TDs than picks, which was unusual for a first-year player in those days. Plus, the team responded to him. And finally, I had the luxury of evaluating McMahon over an entire season, even if it was a strike-abbreviated nine-gamer, and the book on Harrington only has three pages. Now here's the spooky part. The guy Harrington beat out is named ... McMahon. Scary, isn't it?

Sooner or later I knew I'd have to deal with this. The complaints about the way I shorted the Giants in the rankings. I lowered them six spots after they lost to Atlanta, giving them only a brief moment to wave at the Cowboys, whom they passed in transit as Dallas went shooting up in the express elevator, all the way to No.18, which was seven spots higher than New York, to whom they had lost at home. Here are the complainers, and if I were a Giant fan, or even a normal-sized one, I'd be firing in my e-mail, too: Jason of Manhattan, Matt of Simsbury (Simsbury, where?), Michael of Gaithersburg, Md.

Guys, I was too hard on your team. I saw too many injuries, I saw an offense that turned the ball over twice in crunch time, I saw gloom. I reacted emotionally, whereas I have always prided myself on an appeal to reason. I could offer all sorts of lame excuses, such as my back hurt, or Little Jake the kitten had just dragged in another garter snake and the Redhead was screaming at me to, "Do something, for God's sake!" But I won't. I will try to give you an honest shake in the weeks to come. Don't give up.

Packers e-mailers who aren't happy, Jason of Milwaukee and Mike K. of Eau Claire, Wisc., are easier to deal with. Similar complaints. True, the Pack lost to New Orleans, but the Saints lost to Detroit, is their point. When a good team loses to an opponent it should beat handily, I lay it off to not taking that team seriously enough, plus the other team playing with greater urgency and intensity.Therefore, when assessing a team's quality, I don't give as much weight to a shocking upset as I do to a team losing to one of similar ability. And thank you, Mike, for your nice comments and your remarks about food and restaurants and your regards to the Redhead. Her response: "Tell him to send me an éclair from Eau Claire." (She's tired).

To Zak of Minneapolis: Thank you. Why isn't the the old Buddy Ryan 46 defense used so much these days? Well, it still is, here and there, by old Buddy guys, such as Jeff Fisher in Tennessee, but only as a mixer. It was felt to be unsound for two reasons, 1) committing so many people to the rush put too much strain on the cornerbacks, and 2) it was vulnerable to sweeps. It was effective under Buddy because he had such a stable of studs to run it, such as his guys in Chicago and Philly. Not every team has people like Dan Hampton and Richard Dent and Steve McMichael and Otis Wilson and Mike Singletary and Wilber Marshall and Seth Joyner and Clyde Simmons and Jerome Brown and Reggie White to send in after the quarterback.

After what he describes as 100 attempts to get through Jimmy's barbed wire mesh, Josh of Tampa finally weighs in with this weighty question. "Why aren't you coaching? Seriously." Well, I don't believe in coaching seriously. A guy's gotta have his laughs. Actually I did coach for one year. My senior year at Columbia, when the Ivy League Presidents Committee ruled me ineligible during the season (something to do with my transfer from Stanford), and in order to hold on to my training table grant, Lou Little made me the line coach ("co-coach," the record says) of the lightweight team, the 150-pounders. We ended up 2-3, the best record of any Columbia lightweight team in history, you could look it up. The problem was that I was coaching some guys who were my classmates, my drinking buddies. Discipline was often haphazard.

I'll give you an example. We were playing Rutgers and I pulled out one of our tackles, Jack Lauterborn, to give him a breather. He said to me, "Put me back in. I've gotta get even with that guy." Sure, be my guest, and back he went. I watched him on the next play and he wound up and delivered an Earnie Shavers cobblestone right, which drew more flags than the "I Am An American Day" celebration in Central Park. So the ref, an old-time ECAC official, started walking off the 15, making only a cursory indication of the foul, and I'm showing off for the kids and I start yelling, "What's the penalty, ref? What's the call?"

"Fifteen yahds," the old guy said. "Intent to maim and disfigure."

Joe of New York wonders what's happened to the Patriots. Let's look at their last game. I thought they'd beat the Packers at home. Their modus operandi has been thoroughly ripped, all that throwing, etc. But logically, if you have your top receiver, Troy Brown, back and you're facing a secondary with three starters out, what would you do? Run all day between the tackles? I thought they'd put a couple of scores on the board early, force the Pack into a catch-up mode, and get a couple of picks against Favre.

But things kept going wrong, offensively. Stupid penalties, breakdowns along the offensive line, and pretty soon the Packers were controlling the game and the Pats couldn't come back. So what's wrong? Offensive line, for one thing. It just isn't very good, particularly at the tackles, which I thought would be just fine this year. Concentration is off. Intensity, too. Lots of complexity on defense, which doesn't help when they get smacked in the mouth. In short, everything that's wrong with a mediocre team. The Packers found ways to expose certain players, Otis Smith when he had to cover downfield; Tedy Bruschi, when he had to take on people, straight up. Now Bill Belichick will be put to the test. Can he right this tilted ship?

Steve of Houston wants to know which NFL columnists I read on a regular basis. Well, our guys, of course, Peter King and Don Banks, to find out what's going on. I don't have time to get to everything that's on the 'net. Wish I could. I'm too busy watching all the games I've taped. I like Dan Pompei and Paul Attner and the "Scout's Corner" in The Sporting News, although I don't always agree with what's written. I skim-read the stuff in USA Today, only for information. Ditto everything that's written in the New York-area papers, but I find that all the notes columns have the same notes, probably because they're all picking it up from the same Internet sources. I get some great little nuggets from our correspondents' files that come in on Sunday nights from the games they've covered, many of those correspondents being beat men for teams around the league.

Part two deals with Texas wine. Don't laugh. There is a wine-growing community there. Haven't had much in the last few years, but I did attend the New York Wine Writers Circle luncheon some years ago when the Texas Winegrowers Association presented a full spectrum. Clean wines, mostly, but mousy little things, dink passers. One of their members asked me what I thought of the wines, in general. I told him it was like a baseball lineup with all singles hitters. No one swinging for the fences. He made a face and walked away and none of them talked to me any more. "Which is the story of your life," the Redhead just added. How true.

Jason of Montreal wants to know how I feel about the Terrell Owens thing. Funny you should ask right now. Linda is watching the TV and she just hollered over, gleefully, that the league is fining him for having his shirt out, not for autographing the ball. If this is really true, and she's not just hitting me with a bug, I fully agree. Ball-autographers must look neat at all times. How do I feel about the original signing? Well, I got a laugh out of it until I heard who he had signed it for. His financial advisor. Well, that ruins it. Not for a crippled kid. Not for his grade-school teacher. Financial advisor, for Pete's sake! How quaint. All the big-money guys getting together for a little down-home fun. I guess Owens wouldn't bug me so much if he weren't so erratic in games. I mean, he'll drop a couple of balls and then complain that they're not throwing to him enough. Then, just when things are at their lowest point, Andrea Kremer or someone will do an in-depth interview with him on TV and he'll shed a tear or two and tell us about his grandmother. Sorry, I don't buy it. But my first reaction to the signing thing was a laugh.

From Brantley of Cedar Rapids: How do I feel about the Browns? Zilch in the running dept. Bad choice when they drafted William Green. So-so in almost every category, without what I feel is real quality in any one area, and that includes QB, unless all of a sudden Kelly Holcomb wins a huge vote of confidence and shows he's for real. They also seem to go for marginal players, characterwise, guys carrying a little baggage. When they play hard, they're in a game. When it's talent against talent, they're short-enders.

A pair of unrelated Redskins-type questions from George of East Brunswick, N.J. Is Marvin Lewis' defensive scheme too complicated? Bear in mind that in Baltimore he had great position coaches to implement it, and I'm not so sure he has the same quality to work with in Washington. I think it might take a while until his scheme is fully grasped, but no, I don't see big mixup problems, or that many more than exist on other teams. I was impressed by the way the defense hung together and held the Saints to field goals after the early turnovers deep in Skins territory. Well, held them to field goals the first two times, after they'd forced a punt on the opening possession.

Big Pauly of Rocklin, Calif., where the heat can be unbearable, wonders why the Broncos coaches must keep prodding Brian Griese. Well, I'm sure that the piece by Adam Schefter, who's a very thorough reporter, described the scene accurately, but sometimes coaches get on a guy because he doesn't quite live up to their expectations, which are inordinately high. I've never talked to Bob Griese about his son, but I've seen unbelievable displays of courage on Brian's part, notably the night he separated his shoulder and still hung in and gutted it out to beat the Raiders. This has put me in his corner, and I kind of wince a bit when the coaches get on him. He has a history of lapses of concentration, though, and last year, with that jayvee set of receivers the Broncos sent out there, he was kind of in a funk. Every time I saw him this year, though, he played well, with the exception of the third quarter against St. Louis, and, of course, the Baltimore game, but I lay that one off to the offensive line getting overrun. In answer to your question, you are not keeping me up until 2 a.m. this week. It is only 12:10 a.m., and there's still plenty of action around here, with the Redhead happily watching Bride in the Wind on the Sundance Channel. Please feel free to ask any other question you might have about our modest household, namely Little Jake the kitten, who is a deep and mysterious character.

Thanks to Dave of Jamestown, N.D., for your kind words. I guess it's rather simplistic to say that the presence of TE Jim Kleinsasser makes all the difference in the Vikings' offense, but as you point out, the makeup of a team can be fragile at times. I think he gives the offense a grain of toughness that's missing without him. So far, the only tight end I saw who's in his class as a blocker is Walter Rasby of the Redskins, but Kleiny catches passes, too.

Some announcing questions from Gary of Philly. Is there anything we can do to get Randy Cross and Cris Collinsworth off the air? Sure, pay 'em more money to do something else. Actually, Collinsworth doesn't bother me. Originally I thought that when he teamed up with Troy Aikman, who's a nice guy, he'd sharpen his blade by bouncing one-liners off Troy, but it hasn't worked out that way. They get along just fine. I have no trouble listening to that team. Cross you can have for Christmas and 10 points.

Why is it so difficult to find TV color guys who actually know football? Oh, they know football all right, at least they do when you talk to them. They have the great disadvantage of having to hear all sorts of junk fed into their headsets by producers constantly stressing the entertainment factor, the story line, and similar crap. So all we hear is promotion, constant boosting of the superstars, even when they're doing zip on the field.

Why hasn't Ron Jaworski been given a shot in the booth? I think he could get it if he wanted it, even though most of the clunks in production think he's too technical for the average fan. And, of course, they're the ones who gave us Dennis Miller. But I honestly think Jaws is happy doing what he's doing and not being pestered by a bunch of people telling him to entertain, to project, to promote, to do everything except tell us what's going on out there.

Thanks to Jake of Savoy, Ill., for your sentiments. You say you saw Deltha O'Neal setting up Chris Chambers for Kenoy Kennedy's kill shot by shoving his head down into the blow? Uh uh, didn't happen. They're flying too fast out there for such diabolical machinations. What I did see in that game, though, was Broncos LB Al Wilson deliver exactly the same kind of helmet-to-helmet shot, except that it was in a close, in-line situation, and nobody was damaged. And, of course, Paul Maguire and the rest of the crew mentioned the good hit without grasping the fact that it was the brother of the other one.

Last one of the night. From Larry of Bakersfield, Calif. "So, Mr. Football, who do you like in the World Series?" Hey, are you implying that I don't keep abreast of the other sports? I have some very definite ideas on that subject. I think that if Allie Reynolds and the rest of the pitching staff holds up, and Joe Page is effective coming in from the bullpen, the Yanks have a hell of a shot. Watch Brooklyn's Al Gionfrido, though. There's an outfielder who can really go after those deep drives.

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

 

Related information

Multimedia

Visit Video Plus for the latest audio and video