| |
Instant replay and other dropped balls
Posted: Friday September 17, 1999 03:12 PM
Click here to send your NFL questions to SI's Peter King. Much consternation about instant replay so far this year. Much. And while I sympathize with the people who've been screwed by replay so far -- coach Jim Fassel and his Giants in the preseason, Tampa's Tony Dungy -- I say precisely what Indianapolis coach Jim Mora said the other day when asked about the reinstitution of the system: "It's too early to judge." I have waffled about replay over the years. When it came into play in 1986, I loved it, because why shouldn't horrible calls be fixed when everyone around the world can see they're horrible? Later in the six-year experiment, I hated it, because replay officials couldn't figure out what indisputable visual evidence was. And last year, I knew the game needed it, desperately. The Armageddon call happened, which is why Dennis Erickson is coaching in Corvallis, Ore., today instead of Seattle. Now I think everyone needs to cool off for a couple of months, let the system work or not work, and judge the thing over a body of work, not over two or three weekends. "The whole idea," NFL supervisor of officials Mike Pereira told me the other day in Nashville, "is to get rid of the Testaverde play." Everyone saw Vinny Testaverde fall short of the goal line on fourth-and-goal with the game on the line last year against Seattle ... except official Earnie Frantz , who mistakenly thought Vinny's helmet was a football and ruled he scored the winning touchdown against Seattle. And that's why we have instant replay today. Now it's getting screwed up again, this time by refs who do not know what indisputable visual evidence is. As Fassel told me when I asked him what was wrong with the new system, he told me: "What's right about it? We voted in a system that was supposed to correct obviously wrong calls, not make right calls wrong. The officials don't know what the purpose of the system is." I wrote about the new system in my SI column this week, and Dungy was justifiably angry over a pass reception that was overturned by referee Ed Hochuli when he clearly did not have indisputable visual evidence to rule the pass incomplete. But he ruled it incomplete anyway. I saw the same four replays Hochuli saw, and I'll swear right here on my Macintosh PowerBook G3 that there is no angle that could clearly show whether Buccaneer wideout Karl Williams caught the ball legally or not. In this case, Hochuli should have clicked on his microphone and said: "After further review, the play stands as called on the field. The pass is complete." The NFL needs replay, done the right way. It's vital to the integrity of a game watched by millions every week. I say give it time. And let's just hope the 16 referees reviewing plays on fields over the next four months realize what "indisputable" means. Now onto your questions of the week:
I think Lions management is making the worst decision regarding Barry Sanders. Why not trade Sanders and get two or three players and some draft picks to help this team over the next few years and make this team a good team for once? Dallas did this with Herschel Walker and they went on to win three Super Bowl. It seems like I am the only person who thinks the Lions are crazy to hold onto Sanders. One point about the Sanders un-retirement, and all the issues that go with it: Say Brett Favre decided to retire tomorrow. He walks into Green Bay GM Ron Wolf 's office and says he's retiring. The Packers wait a week, then say: You know that $12 million signing bonus we gave you a couple of years ago? We want the portion for the years you don't play back. And Favre says: I'll give it back to you if you release me. See the precedent? What's to stop any player from "retiring," then saying he'd pay his pro-rated signing bonus back if the team just did him the small favor or releasing him? The Lions would be nuts to consider it.
With the loss of Vinny Testaverde for the season, do you see the Jets bringing in Jeff Hostetler as a veteran backup for Rick Mirer? He played for Bill Parcells for a long time and won a Super Bowl with him. I can't see how this wouldn't be a good move at this time -- if Jeff still has the desire to play. He's one of Bill's guys. I'm a Hoss fan in this situation. A couple of weeks ago, Denver coach Mike Shanahan talked to me with some excitement about calling on Hostetler if he needed another quarterback. I just heard Parcells say for now he's going with Mirer- Ray Lucas - Tom Tupa . I think it's a mistake. I think he ought to throw Hostetler into the mix, because he might wake up in two weeks in a serious hole after realizing Mirer's not up to the task. And then if he signed Hostetler, by the time he got him up to speed in the Jets' offense, the season might be lost. It might be lost anyway, but I still think the Jets have a shot to make the playoffs. My reconfigured AFC East prediction would now be: Miami, Indianapolis, New England, Jets, Buffalo. What a difference a week makes.
What in God's name must the Raiders do to become an elite team in the NFL? I know this somewhat of a vague question, but it kills me to see such a talented team do so poorly year after year. Well, this is the wrong year to expect much from the Raiders. In the first place, they've got the toughest eight-week schedule of any team I've ever seen: at Green Bay, at Minnesota, Chicago, at Seattle, Denver (which will become a Denver home game if the Oakland A's make the American League playoffs), at Buffalo, Jets, Miami. So no matter how talented they are (and I take issue with you and every Raider fan and analyst who always talks about how talented they are, you don't miss out on the playoffs for seven years because of coaching or attitude or Al Davis ; some of that is talent, and Raider fans are famous for vastly overrating their team's talent), I can't see them making the playoffs. I did, though, like what outside linebacker K.D. Williams did in the first game as a starter, making an impact chasing Brett Favre.
How come the Detroit Lions' victory ON THE ROAD in Seattle didn't warrant any mention of any kind from you about Week 1 surprises? Ron Rivers goes for 135 all-purpose yards, Germane Crowell goes for a buck 40-something in the air and two scores. And no mention of the Lions doing the unthinkable? Great win for the Lions. I wasn't aware the Super Bowl had been moved to Sept. 12 at the Kingdome this year.
I think one of the reasons the 49ers lost last Sunday is that they don't have a speedy, breakaway receiver. Every defense in the league is just going to crowd the line of scrimmage and the receivers waiting for the slant and the short passing game. I think they should trade J.J. Stokes and a first-round pick for Joey Galloway. What do you think? I don't think it is too much to sacrifice to get one of the best receivers in the league. Of all the trades ever proposed to me, this is one of the smartest I've seen. Galloway would give the 49ers the deep speed Steve Young could use, especially considering his line might get him killed this year, and the quick separation Galloway could provide might keep Young standing. Stokes would give Mike Holmgren the receiver he needs. Two basic problems: One, the last thing the 49ers need is another bank-breaking wideout; Jerry Rice and Terrell Owens are already among the league's top-seven paid receivers, and the San Francisco cap already has been shaved by $27 million. Two, San Francisco needs to keep its first-round pick. The 49ers' talent base has been so eroded by cap-shaving and age. More borrowing from tomorrow to pay today will leave the Niners 3-13 in 2002, the year after Young leaves the game.
After a terrible loss to the Lions, do you think Holmgren will step to the plate and give Galloway the money he is asking for? Let me ask you a question: Suppose the two guys Galloway is measuring himself against are Carl Pickens and Antonio Freeman . Fair, right? They're two star receivers who've just signed in the past three weeks. Let's compare Galloway's last three seasons against those two guys' last three seasons, entering 1999:
I understand, fairly, that Galloway hasn't exactly had Favre throwing to him. But I could throw in Herman Moore here as well. He's had Mr. Turnover, Scott Mitchell , and a rookie throwing to him the past three years and put up much better numbers than Galloway. So don't give me the cry that Galloway's numbers are deficient solely because his quarterbacking has been mediocre. Freeman, essentially, has a five-year, $25-million deal. Pickens, five years and $23.25. Galloway, I understand now, would settle for five and $25 million. Say you're in charge of the Paul Allen 's cap, and you've got some massive holes to fill on the team. You might need a quarterback if Jon Kitna can't make it. You'll definitely need young linebacker and safety help soon, and another wideout across from Galloway, and probably a better tight end. You've offered Galloway five years and $23 million already. To me, you've offered an eminently fair deal.
Has everyone forgotten Ray Lucas? Here's a young man who knows the Jets' offense as well as anyone else (anyone left standing, that is) and is arguably the best athlete on the team. The Jets may not win it all, but they may still have a fighting chance with a youthful, experienced (at least in Parcells's system) quarterback. Am I living a fan fantasy, or does this idea have some real merit? I like Lucas very much, and I can see why Parcells likes him. I remember the Giants-Jets preseason game a month ago, when Parcells put him in for the first series and Lucas led the team to a touchdown -- and on the ensuing kickoff made the tackle. Never seen that before. I think he's an intriguing quarterback prospect. but I don't see how you put the Jets' playoff hopes in Ray Lucas' hands. Sorry.
It seems strange to me that Cleveland fans still have this extreme hate for Art Modell. Yes, he took your team away, but as I understand, he took it because the city would not build a new stadium. Yet, the city had to do just that to land an expansion team. Would they not have been better off building the stadium and keeping a semi-competitive team than building it later for the team that showed up Sunday night? I wonder about the hate for Modell too. The Browns are better off now than they ever would have been had Modell remained owner of the franchise. He had to go to five banks to borrow the $5 million signing bonus money for Andre Rison . He had no political friends in town. He wasn't going to get a stadium built. In his place is one of the richest men in American business, Al Lerner , who is the quintessential modern sports owner. He doesn't give a rat's hiney if he makes money. All he wants to do is win. You will see in the magazine, in my column this week, that Lerner's Browns spent a league-high $80 million on signing bonuses and salaries this off-season. And there's a franchise quarterback-in-waiting (who gets his first start Sunday at Tennessee, by the way), even though Tim Couch sure didn't look like one the other night. And there's a top front-office staff. I think any rational Browns fan would say: I'd trade three Brownless years for a do-over, for a new owner and stadium and quarterback and coach, all of whom and which look a lot better than they looked in 1995. Modell agrees. Look in the story I wrote about the Browns in last week's issue, the one with the sex offenders on the cover. In what I consider a startling admission, Modell tells me, right in that story, that the Browns fans are better off without him than they were with him. About the 43-0 loss? Big deal. I said all summer this was the worst collection of skill players I'd seen in the NFL in years, and this was going to be a tougher road to respectability than the 1995 expansion teams had because established teams are doing a much better job of keeping their own free-agents today than they were four years ago. The only thing that worries me from the other night is the offensive line looked horrible. That's a pretty expensive group of guys to look that bad. I do not have a question, Peter. I just wanted to say that I have read a lot of sports columns in my life and I thought your Monday Morning Quarterback was well-spoken, intelligent, non-biased and amusing. I am shocked a sports reporter would admit in public (with complete honesty and sincerity) about a mistake. I have a lot of respect for you. I look forward to a lot of Jake the Snake comebacks and a lot of great articles from you. If you are ever in Phoenix, I hope to meet you at one of the Cardinals games.
A new fan of your work, Thanks. Don't give me too much credit, though. When it looks like I'm wrong, and when I'm wrong in front of a national TV audience, it's hard (and fruitless) to hide.
Peter, I would like your reaction to the booing of Steve McNair on Sunday. It seems for some reason, and despite good stats for a second-year starter in 1998, many writers and fans tend to believe that McNair does not have the stuff of a winning quarterback. During the preseason, many whined that Neil O'Donnell should start. I think Steve will continue to develop into an excellent QB, but I am afraid Nashville doesn't get it. Your thoughts? I was shocked at the booing. I was in Nashville Sunday (by the way, nice stadium, Nashville) and saw what I think could be the first day of a new McNair -- a bombing, running and thinking McNair, who told me after the game this was the first time in his career he'd felt like he felt as a college quarterback, when he set all the records for running and throwing at Alcorn State. And he makes a dumb throw and fumbles on consecutive possessions, and they boo him. Now, it's one thing to cheer for the backup, Neil O'Donnell, in the preseason; be happy you've got a backup, Nashville, as good as O'Donnell. But booing McNair for a couple of bad plays in the midst of his best day as a pro? Wow. This isn't the Vols, folks. You don't win all your games in this league. Get behind the kid. For now, he deserves it. Send a question to Peter King, and check back Sept. 23 for the next NFL Mailbag.
Peter King is a Sports Illustrated senior writer.
| |||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 1999 CNN/SI. A Time Warner Company. Terms under which this service is provided to you.
| |||||||||||||||||
