| |
|
EVENTS Fantasy Central Inside Game Multimedia Central Statitudes Your Turn Message Boards Email Newsletters Golf Guide Cities Work in Sports
CNNSI.com GROUP
COMMERCE |
Not yet on Rams bandwagon
Posted: Thursday October 14, 1999 01:26 PM
Click here to send your NFL questions to SI's Peter King. Lots of questions this week, as usual, about my Top 10, particularly about not putting the Rams No. 1. Henry M. Rede of Salinas, Calif., asks: "What will it take for the Rams to be No. 1 in your poll? They are the best team in the league. I know you and a few others have a hard time with this, but you really need to get over it." Henry, I would love to get over it. I love good stories. There hasn't been a better personal story than Kurt Warner in the game for a long time, and there haven't been many better team stories than Dick Vermeil bringing the Rams back. Having said that, however, the Rams have creamed four teams that will not be in the playoffs this year. In fact, they might only play one team the rest of the way -- at Tennessee on Halloween -- that looks to be a playoff team right now. Meanwhile, Miami's first three games were against 1998 playoff teams and the fourth was against a team certain to make it this year, Indianapolis. Buffalo has played a tough schedule so far and has looked pretty convincing against Miami and Pittsburgh the last two weeks. I'm not saying that any team's offense is as good as the Rams' right now. I love what offensive coordinator Mike Martz is doing, and I think without question they strike fear into every defensive coordinator in the league right now. Plus, their defense has played better than anyone thought it would. Vermeil told me the other day that his offense has turned the ball over five times so far and the defense has held the opposition to three points off those five giveaways. "That's what I like about our defense right now," Vermeil said. "If they have a short field or if they're given the ball in a tough spot, each time they've risen up and stopped the other guy." It's going to be hard to judge the Rams all season. They're probably going to have a terrific record, 12-4 or 13-3, and yet entering the playoffs we may still not know what to think of them because of their incredibly easy schedule. This isn't to denigrate them in any way, shape or form. It's just simply to say: If I haven't seen them beat a great team and manhandle a great offense, in my mind it's hard to fast-forward and see them dominate, say, a Minnesota on both sides of the ball in a mid-January game. If you're from the Show Me State, you should understand this. The Rams have to show me -- not me, I mean, but America -- that they can beat the best teams in the game before we go coronating them as the kings of 1999.
With the play of Kurt Warner at quarterback, what will happen to Trent Green now? Could he possibly be trade bait for a high draft pick or will the Rams keep him as a backup? This is all assuming that he can come back 100%, of course. Eric, this is a classic what-if question that no one has any idea how to answer right now. But let's look ahead a bit. Let's say Warner is terrific and leads the Rams into the second round of the playoffs before losing, and gets a lot of MVP votes. And let's say that next spring Warner and Green are healthy. Then I'd anticipate that Warner would be the starting quarterback and Green the backup, for at least the year 2000. With the way contracts work in the NFL today it would be hard, if not impossible, to trade Green because of the drain it would put on the Rams' salary cap. For instance, if the Rams dealt him before the draft in April, they would take a $3,375,000 hit against their 2000 salary cap. And so any benefit of trading him would almost be outweighed by the financial hit they'd take in getting rid of him. Green is a great guy. Although it would be a crushing blow for him to be a backup, I think for a year he might be able to handle it.
When do you think the Vikings should throw in Jeff George to start the offense clicking? Even if their offensive struggles continue, I don't see the Vikings playing George until at least midseason. When it appears as if the Vikings have lost potential for any offensive explosion in 1999, then Dennis Green will have no choice but to give George a shot at running the show. But you don't do that at five weeks. They have a tough stretch of San Francisco-Denver-Dallas coming up beginning Oct. 24, and if Cunningham still looks shaky after that, I think Denny will seriously have to consider making a move.
After three successive fourth-quarter collapses, what can the Saints do to save what remains of the season? Can they even do it, or are they destined for another mediocre finish? Though the faces change -- Mora, Hebert, Ditka, Billy Joes -- the attitude seems to remain. They never seem to get over this insurmountable hump! I covered the Saints game against Atlanta in New Orleans last week, Al, and I came away thinking this: If Ricky Williams is hurt, then the Saints ought to take him out of the lineup for two or three weeks until he's healthy enough to be the force they drafted in April. But if they're going to continue to play him, it is absolutely ludicrous to be treating him like some sort of Vaughn Dunbar. I think their offensive play-calling stinks. By my count, Williams didn't touch the ball on 15 of the Saints' last 16 offensive plays in the first half nor on the final eight plays of the second half, when they were trying to make a last-ditch effort to tie Atlanta. I spent some time with Ricky after the game, and there's no question he's frustrated at how he's being used. The guy was brought in to touch the ball 35 times a game. He's actually carrying it 18 times a game through the first four games. I think the Saints' slow start is directly attributable to their poor handling of Williams and their inability to decide that if he's healthy enough to play, he ought to be healthy enough to be their dominant player on offense. We all know their quarterbacks are absolutely marginal, at best. So the whole question is, why are they not giving the ball to Ricky more?
The Bears pull off a great division road win in Minnesota and don't rate even a mention in MMQB? Oh, well. It's obvious Dick Jauron has given the Bears a heart transplant. What's your take on the rejuvenated Chicagoans? Chris, you might be right. But as I've said in past columns, the way I do my rankings is to ask myself: Could Team No. 2 beat Team No. 3, for example, if they played at a neutral site? So, obviously, I still feel that there are 10 teams in the NFL that could beat Chicago in neutral-site games. What will it take to convince me? Two wins in the next three weeks -- Philadelphia at home, at Tampa Bay, at Washington. I do think that Jauron has done a great job in taking some average players and making them believe from the first hour of training camp in Wisconsin that they were a legitimate playoff team the way they were structured right then. I didn't believe it. Probably no one outside of Platteville did. But they might convince us that they deserve to play January football over the next three or four weeks.
You write this week: "Art Monk 's over 900 [career catches], and I have major reservations about his credentials to stand alongside the greats of the game." So are you saying you would not vote Monk in the Hall of Fame? I am interested in your reasoning, as I believe he was the prototype for the big, strong receivers we see today and thrived as a clutch, durable player in the Redskins run-first offenses under Joe Gibbs. He also at one point held three major receiving records (most career catches, catches in a season and consecutive games with a reception). That's right. I do have major reservations on Monk's credentials for the Hall of Fame. I believe I'm right on the statistical data that I'm about to quote. A few years ago, when Monk was in his last season, I started doing a little bit of research on him and I was shocked to see that, despite his high number of catches, Monk had led his own team in receiving in just six of 16 years as an NFL player, and that he was voted All-Pro in only two of 16 years. To me, membership in the Hall of Fame is a tremendous privilege and honor. I will not say here or in any public place before Monk is considered for the Hall whether I believe he belongs, because as one of 36 selectors I don't give my opinion on whether a player should or should not be in before we enter the meeting. After the meeting, I'll be happy to give my opinion. I'm just saying right now I will need to be persuaded when Art Monk comes up for the Hall of Fame that he belongs. I think fans sometimes have a hard time in separating somebody who they think belongs in the Hall of Fame with someone who might belong in the Hall of Very Good.
Regarding your ranking of Buffalo, I'll certainly agree that they're second to none (quite literally), but while Doug Flutie is absolutely amazing (who cares about passer ratings -- he wins games), I think you should have mentioned that the Bills have the scariest defensive line in the game. Actually, If the line consisted solely of Ted Washington and Bruce Smith, I think it'd still be one of the best in the game. I do like Buffalo's defense very much. As long as Washington and Smith stay healthy, they're a threat to beat anybody in January. Why aren't the Chargers in your top 10? They probably have the best defense in the league and their offense isn't bad either. —Scott Warren, San Diego Scott, the Chargers may have the best front seven in the game, particularly in terms of stopping the run. But I think their secondary is shaky (I know their offense is) and they're going to have to win a few big games -- like Seattle and Green Bay the next two weeks at home -- to convince people they're a legitimate playoff contender. But I will say this without trying to sound like a cliché master: As long as Junior Seau is on their team, they will be in every game they play. I continue to be amazed, every time I watch the Chargers, at what a dynamic and impactful and spirited force this man is on the game of football.
I've been a big Kordell Stewart doubter ever since he came into the league. In the days of "Slash," I just shook my head and said, "Works in college, not in the pros. Defenses are just too fast." Now that I think I'm finally being proven right, when will Pittsburgh finally bench him for good? I know all about his new contract, but there comes a point in time when the Steelers will have to admit this guy is a bust. At some point soon the Steelers are going to have to give long-term thought to the quarterback of their future. I don't think you gain very much right now by benching Stewart and going to Mike Tomzcak or Pete Gonzalez. And the Steelers have never been the kind of organization to make a panicky switch in mid-October. So I think Stewart, shakily, will last the season and then Pittsburgh will think seriously about drafting a young kid in the first, second or third round to groom as its next quarterback.
Send a question to Peter King, and check back Thursdays for his latest NFL Mailbag.
| |||||||||||||||||||||
