Is it time to panic in Pittsburgh?
Send a question to Peter
King
SI's NFL Insider received more than 500 questions following the first week of
NFL action. Here are his answers to a select few.
Posted: Fri September 5,
1997
After Pittsburgh's horrific 37-7 loss to the Cowboys, do
you think that the Steelers are as bad as they played, or
will they be able to pull themselves together and make it
to the playoffs?
—Paul
Staniland
Oh, don't get so worried. It wasn't so long ago that the
Steelers lost their opener to the Browns 51-0 and went on
to have a playoff year [1989]. Dallas is the second-best
team in the NFL. The Steelers have had no luck against the
Cowboys for the last
two decades, so don't overreact. Having said that, what this
game says to me is that when running back Jerome Bettis
doesn't come up huge, Pittsburgh struggles. Kordell Stewart
is going to be a good quarterback, but the Steelers had
better have him do
what he does best—roll out, throw sideline and deep post
routes. What they shouldn't have him do is try to play a
controlled passing
game.
You said last week that Green Bay has the best defense by
far. By far? Isn't that a little risky? In their season
opener on Monday night, the Pack gave up 24 points and, at
best, looked average. Is "by far" still your
opinion?
—Alan
Pace
 That's my story and I'm sticking to it. I think the
Packers' depth is pretty darn good. How many teams can lose
a good pass rusher like Sean Jones and throw in a better
all-around player in defensive end Gabe Wilkins? I also
think that although
cornerback Tyrone Williams isn't the player Craig Newsome is, he's a
good cover guy who shouldn't hurt Green Bay's secondary
significantly. On the other hand, if Doug Evans, the other
corner, gets hurt, the Packers are in trouble. But let me
ask you this: What
team in the NFL can lose its two starting corners and be all
right? No team; because no one has that kind of depth any
more.
Cincinnati came away with a win against Arizona but the
Bengals' new defensive scheme didn't seem to have a major
impact on the game. Will the new defense make a difference
this year?
—Andrew
Taylor
The only good thing I can see about that win from a Bengals
standpoint is that they didn't fold in the fourth quarter.
[Cincinnati scored 21 points in the last five minutes to
pull out a 24-21 win.] Quarterback Jeff Blake was
positively mediocre for
three quarters, and he's going to have to put points on the
board for that team to win.
Bengals fans need to understand that teams simply can't win
with the zone blitz overnight. I don't think Cincinnati
will be comfortable with it until 1998. To make the
playoffs, the Bengals had better be able to score 24 or 28
points per game while the
defense adjusts to a scheme that most of them are playing
for the first time in their
lives.
The 49ers front office is not very good at dealing with
poor performance. Considering the horrendous preseason and
San Francisco's opening day loss to Tampa Bay, how much of
a grace period will Mariucci have before a "special
consultant" is brought in to "help"
out?
—Frank
Baker
Bill Walsh has not disappeared from this organization. He
has lunch once a week with team president Carmen Policy,
and the two of them talk about the state of the team. It
would be deadly if this team brought anybody in to
"help" Mariucci because it
would be a clear signal that he was a stupid hire (which we
can't say he was at this point). Give Mariucci a chance. He
is presiding over the most difficult period that any
organization can go through—he is attempting to
scotch-tape a team back together
after most of its great stars have left or gotten older or been
injured. And he's further handicapped by the fact that the
Niners have drafted poorly in recent years.
Which team surprised you the most in Week 1, the Bucs, the
Cowboys, the Giants or the Jets?
—David
Broyles
The Jets, no doubt about it. Coming into the season,
Seattle was clearly the NFL's most improved team in terms
of personnel acquisitions made in the off-season. I talked
to rookie cornerback Shawn Springs Sunday night after the
game, and from what he
said, it seemed that the Seahawks were in a state of shock
over how the Jets manhandled them. I think this first game
demonstrates that teams are going to have to outscore the
Jets to beat them. The receiving trio of Wayne Chrebet,
Jeff Graham and Keyshawn
Johnson is as strong as any team's group of wideouts in
that division. In one week the Jets established themselves
as the second-best team in their
division.
Kansas City's new-look, "big chunks" offense fell
flat against Denver on Sunday. Who takes the heat, coach
Marty Schottenheimer, offensive coordinator Paul Hackett or
new quarterback Elvis Grbac?
—Jamie
Buck
Schottenheimer and Hackett must share the blame for having
the Chiefs' best offensive weapon, Greg Hill, run the ball
all of two times in the first half. That is inexcusable. No
matter what a team is trying to do offensively, the basis
of any attack has
to be a strong running game. Hill averaged 4.8 yards per
carry in 1996, and he had 92 yards on seven carries Sunday.
How can you not have used this guy more? I applaud the
Chiefs for trying to grow their passing game, but the way
they used Hill on
Sunday hurt their chance to win at Denver in a big way.
What is up with San Diego? They hardly used Eric Metcalf
this week. What's the deal?
—John
Sabatini
I think Kevin Gilbride is wondering the same thing. Metcalf
had zero catches and zero rushes. Metcalf simply has to get
the ball to give Tony Martin some kind of relief from the
defensive pressure. It's also going to be very difficult
for this team to
get any real pressure on the quarterback. The Chargers vastly
overpaid for defensive end Marco Coleman last year ($3.3
million per year; he had one tackle on Sunday) and they
don't have a single defensive lineman who puts any fear
into an offensive
coordinator. When linebacker Junior Seau is missing from the
lineup, this is a team in big defensive trouble. The
running game looks like it will be O.K. though, especially
if San Diego gives Terrell Fletcher the ball more than
seven times, his total on
Sunday.
I think the Chargers will be the last-place team in the AFC
West, but that shouldn't come as much of a surprise to
anyone.
Ray Rhodes has milked the most out of questionable talent
in his two years as Eagles coach. It seems that this good
fortune has run dry. There is a QB controversy brewing, and
Rhodes' tough talk is starting to fall on deaf ears in
Philly. After a tough opening-day loss to a below-average
Giants club, is there any way you can see the Birds turning
this season around?
—Brian
Dilsheimer
I like Rhodes. He is a results-only guy, a totally
dispassionate, win-at-all-costs person. But your first
sentence says it all about the Eagles: Rhodes has milked
about everything he can out of a team that doesn't have the
tremendous financial resources
of some of its competitors. Remember, this is the team that
wouldn't pay the brightest quarterback prospect in
football—Mark Brunell—a piddling signing bonus three
years ago and thus lost him to Jacksonville.
I agree that things look dire in Philadelphia. But football
is an emotional game, and Rhodes is an emotional coach. I
think the Eagles will bounce back to be a playoff
contender—if only by the sheer will of Rhodes.
With the Jets beating the Seahawks on the road, have you
re-thought your pre-season predictions for the AFC
East?
—Horace
Green
Very much so. I think the Jets are a 9-7, second-place team
right now and I wouldn't be surprised if they challenge the
Patriots in that division. In my mind, they've already
surpassed the Dolphins.
Do the 49ers have the cap room to sign another receiver to
take Jerry Rice's place, such as Bill Brooks or Webster
Slaughter?
—Mark
Hubbard
I don't think the 49ers are going to sign anybody. If they
choose to sign anyone, it will almost have to be a minimum
salary guy because of their horrendous cap situation. Read
my column in this week's issue of Sports
Illustrated, and you'll see what bad shape they're in. The Niners have
$62 million committed to the team in '98, a figure they'll
have to drastically cut in order to get anywhere close to
the cap, which I predict will be about $46 million next
year.
Did Ditka pull Heath Shuler from the Rams game because
Shuler was getting beaten up or because he prefers Danny
Wuerffel?
—John
Adelman
Ditka pulled Shuler because he was awfully beaten up but
also because Shuler had had about eight bad series in a
row. Ditka no doubt figured he might as well give Wuerffel
a chance in what was becoming a lost-cause game. I was at
the game, and after the
first two series, Shuler played like the guy who broke Norv
Turner's heart in
Washington.
I think it's probably just a matter of time before Wuerffel
gets the ball for this team. On Sunday he threw one of the
prettiest passes I've ever seen, lofting an off-balance
30-yard pillow of a pass to Andre Hastings for New
Orleans's last touchdown.
I'll get on my soapbox here and say it
again: Wuerffel is an
NFL quarterback and will prove that very, very soon. I think the ways
scouts maligned him before the draft (i.e., questioning his
arm strength) is a classic example of overlooking nine
things a
guy does well for the one thing he doesn't. You don't have
to have a John Elway howitzer of an arm to play well in the
NFL. Danny Wuerffel will prove that.
Previous
editions of Peter King's
Mailbag
Send a question to Peter
King
| 
