Hey, stop sweating my two-week rankings
Posted: Saturday September 19, 1998 06:28 PM
Everyone's upset with my rankings. I am, too. If I were a reader I'd be
yelling about a guy so dense he does things such as raising Dallas a couple
of spots after getting blown out by the Broncos, lowering Chicago a couple
of notches after playing so tough against the Steelers, etc. OK, I'll
tell you how it is, generally, before I get around to addressing the more
aggressive whiners, whine for whine. Publications such as the New
York Times base their rankings on a formula involving margin of
victory, quality of opposition, circulation figures in the suburban areas,
number of times Bill Clinton is mentioned on the editorial page,and
so on. I don't use a formula. I look at a team and rank it strictly
on how it appears to me, the character of it, certain intangibles, etc.
Therefore the Jets got a high ranking after their Week 1 loss to the 49ers,
higher than some of the unbeatens. They were aggressive. They went after
it. They were a live team. When they lost to the Ravens I dropped them
nine spots. Not that I thought they were so terrible all of a sudden; it's
just that others muscled in ahead of them. I play a lot of hunches. I
go with a lot of teams that just feel right to me. This is a personal
thing, see. For instance, why are the Redskins No. 15 after getting blown
out by the Niners? Because I thought Norv Turner's play-calling in
the first half was as good as I've seen. He was continually outguessing
the defense. Then Michael Westbrook, the league's greatest
coach-breaker, cost them six by grabbing a facemask, and Blanton missed two
kicks, and the defense pulled el foldo in the second half. And now,
after two games, it is fashionable to write the Skins off for the season.
This is the biggest mistake people make, be they sportswriters or fans --
drawing a definitive conclusion when the season is in its infancy. Hey,
stop sweating my two-week rankings. Things will sort themselves out. The
Packers will be up there where they belong, if they earn it. I'll drop the
Niners if their secondary starts costing them games. I'm not nuts,
although my wife might disagree. Seems that you New Orleans fans are a
bit upset about my pre-season 1-15 for the Saints. A little nasty too, eh,
fellas? To Mr. Van Buskirk, I can only suggest that if you're ever
up in this part of Jersey, drop by. I want to take the liberty of
introducing you to my ex-wife. To Rusty of Monroe, Louisiana, the
most serious of my Saints critics, I will say the following. Yes, I am a
bit prejudiced against this team. No, I was not entirely serious about
that 1-15 ... 4-12 would have been more accurate ... but I wanted to make a
statement. I'm sick of all this Mike Ditka hoo-ha. You win it
with personnel and decision making, not motivational nonsense. No coach
ever motivated me in my 10 years or so of playing the game. Scare you,
yes. Humilitate you? Of course. But the real motivation comes from
yourself -- and your teammates. The only things I ever asked of a coach,
and most of the guys I played with after the high school level felt the
same way, was to call the right plays, put the right people on the field,
and we'd take care of the rest ourselves. Just leave us alone. I was
shocked that New Orleans didn't address the QB situation. Likewise shocked
the Saints let the heart and soul of their defense, Winfred Tubbs,
slip away. I underrated their offensive and defensive lines. They still
haven't beaten anyone serious, but they HAVE won two. OK, I could be
wrong. The season's still in diapers. In Dallas you're accusing me of
being prejudiced against the Cowboys. Right on! Ever since Tex
Schramm called them America's team. Have I ever picked them to win a
big game? Most certainly. I picked them to beat Miami in the '72 Super
Bowl. What don't I like about them? Offensive line, which is slipping
badly. Lack of pass rush. To Smk (watta name!) in Northfield,
New Hampshire: The Z in Dr.Z does NOT stand for Zipperhead. It would take
a ZH to cover that. It stands for Zonked, which I generally am after
logging my eight games over the weekend. Liked the Pats in their loss to
the Broncos. They showed real courage there. Didn't like them in their
win over Indy. Strange lack of muscle in the running game. Dear Mr.
Varrichio of Boston: I do not hate the Pats. I hate valet parking and
gourmet dining and hostess seating and "Have a Nice Day" and voice mail and
anyone connected with airlines or medical insurance plans. But the Pats?
No. Right now they look better than the Jets, my preseason division winner,
and not as good as the Dolphins. That might change after Week 3, and
change again a week later, and again and again and again. That's the way
it works over 17 weeks. No mailer got me as ticked off as Andrus
of Carencro, Louisiana. Right, I took the "safe" route in my pre-season
picks and just went the way of everyone else. That's why I picked Tampa Bay
to win the NFC Central over Green Bay. And lose to the Jaguars in the
Super Bowl when everyone went with the Broncos. Gimme a break, man. I
make a lot of mistakes, but sticking strictly with chalk isn't one of them.
Sure I'm prejudiced in favor of the Bucs. Everyone develops emotional
favorites if he's got a heartbeat. Sure they're struggling now. Maybe they
won't be a month from now. We'll see (two words that came back to haunt me
last week, didn't they?) A serious question deserves a serious answer.
To Eric Petrusic in Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina, who wants to
know: "How can you slam the Raiders two weeks ago for calling timeouts
at the end of a game to get the offense back on the field, and then slam
the Cardinals the next week for doing the exact opposite and letting the
clock run out?" The difference was the Raiders did it at the end of
a game that was already decided, and the Cards butchered the clock at the
end of the half, with the issue still in doubt. To Navin Battu of
Oakland: Why no shotgun for Jeff George? Some
coaches don't like it because it kills any run-pass option. Some QBs don't
like it either. It doesn't do much to slow down the pass rush and the
Raiders' problem is the pair of OTs, not the formation. To Ty
Perkins of Kirkland, Washington: Seahawks a playoff team?
Not yet. Maybe, if the defensive people stay healthy and Warren Moon remains
functional for 16 games. Many thanks to Don Frese of Baltimore
for his kind words. I played for Lou Little at Columbia. He got me
into journalism school, when my grades dictated otherwise. One phone call
did it. He's the reason why I got to be a sportswriter, why I get to write
the kind of drivel everybody's been taking such shots at. As for all
your Randy Moss queries: I saw a pair of Ole Miss cornerbacks take
him right out of the Motor City Bowl when they got in his face. Why don't
the NFL corners do it? Why do they give him a clean release, and soft
zones to run through? (Why, for instance, do people keep giving Jerry
Rice a clean release?) After that bowl game I read Moss as a terrific
athlete who was basically gutless when challenged. I mentioned this to
Dennis Green. He said, "Wait a while. Let's see what he does with
coaching." Dennis was right, poor old Z was wrong. For now. Bunch of
people asked about Charlie Batch in Detroit. He's an athlete who
came from a wide-open system in college. He could struggle, he could light
it up the way Jake the Snake [Plummer] did last year. You never know
with rookies. The players have lost confidence in Scott Mitchell,
which was why he got the quick hook. Ditto Gus Frerotte in
Washington. Dear Paul Elzey of New Orleans: Many thanks for your
offer of employment in your carpet-cleaning company, but I know what
happens when they lift one of your carpets and I simply can't stand
roaches. Dear Rustam Tahir in Rochester, New York: Is it Marc
Trestman you're refering to, who was run out of San Francisco and found
a home in Phoenix? If so, I'm puzzled, too. Never been a Trestman fan.
Too programmed. Too cerebral. Not enough action. He turned Jerry
Rice into an eight-yard threat. Dear Nick Lewis of
Pittsburgh: Tony Banks
is not well coached. Kordell Stewart is, but he's off to a rocky
start. Having only one legitimate receiver doesn't help. Dear Jason
Misfeldt in Eau Claire, Wisconsin: This is my order of preference of
the three wideouts you named: 1. Marvin Harrison, 2. Yancey
Thigpen, 3. Ike Hilliard. Dear Chris Morgan in Austin,
Texas: I agree with your analysis of the Niners and Packers at this stage,
but they don't meet until November and anything can happen in the meantime.
Got a question or comment for Dr. Z? Click here.
| 
