 |
| |
|
 |
 |
The grades get graded Posted: Thursday May 02, 2002 1:04 PMUpdated: Monday May 06, 2002 4:01 PM
Have a comment or question for Dr. Z? Click here. Jimmy, I want to thank you for feeding me the following slowball: Bob of Denver wants me to be more critical in my draft evaluation next year. "I didn't count," he writes, "but you must have had 20 B/B- grades [very safe]. The most critical grade you gave was a D and I think there was only one of those handed out." He adds that he wants me to be tougher and give out lots of F's, blah blah blah. Bob, the truest thing you said was, "I didn't count." That's right, you didn't. I gave two B/B- grades and four Ds. I won't give an F unless a team drafts a guy with a broken leg in the first round or if it trades its whole board for a player who's retired, the theory being that any decent addition will help, if only a little. Also, giving an F will come back to haunt you if one of those F-draftees somehow gets good, whereas an A draft will not get you in trouble if the guys turn out to be stiffs because all the other graders usually are in the same boat. Now that I'm over my little tantrum, let me say that I agree with the essence of what you wrote, namely that people who rate things normally are too mild in their ratings, whether it's books or movies or restaurants they're grading. I once had a talk with Tim Zagat of the Zagat restaurant guide about this. A grade between 10 and 15 was supposed to be "fair to good," yet the very few restaurants in his book that were given such a grade were basically terrible. "They're bad," I told him. "Bad equals good in your book. Why don't you simply have a category called BAD?" Oh no, can't do that, tut tut tut, he said, it's an overall view, etc., although when I pressed him, Tim, who's a nice guy, said, "Yeah, you're right, but it wouldn't look good." Wimp ratings. I hate them. But I'm still not going to clutter my list with Fs just to make you happy, Bob. Still on the draft ratings, Kevin of Washington D.C., one of the four Kevin e-mailers this week, takes me to task for awarding the Bears a C when, as he says, they addressed their three biggest needs, offensive tackle, cornerback and safety. Well, what does "addressed" mean? Drafting people who play those positions? The Marc Colombo pick does not address the need for a LT, if Blake Brockermeyer isn't re-signed. He's raw, he's a project, he's not, in my opinion, a guy who can step in right away and block the rushers Chicago will be facing. If the Bears had traded up for one of the big three, well yes, then I'd say they had addressed the need. Of course, if Colombo turns out to be merely sensational, then I'm wrong, but I can only give you my opinion. Roosevelt Williams, the cornerback they took in the third round -- they could get lucky here. A gamble ... he might be ready, might not. Bobby Gray, the safetyman in Round 5 -- Who knows? A C draft in my book. As to their quarterback need, how about Chris Chandler? I think he could really shine, if he gets the chance and if -- everybody repeat after me -- he stays healthy. Forget about the future. The future is now when you've got Super Bowl stars in your eyes. Kevin No. 2, this one from Philly, doesn't like the D that I gave the Eagles. Neither do I. I think I was too hasty here, and c'mon now, how many people in my position would admit this? Troy Vincent has a contract coming up next year, and yes, both Vincent and Bobby Taylor have some mileage on them. But still, drafting DBs with the first three picks is a little quirky, wouldn't you say? Any more rips about my ratings? No? OK, let's move on. Kirk of Bethesda, Md., hopes I'm not upset about Mike Holmgren's comment that he always lies to me. Well, I'm not now, but I was -- kind of -- but not as upset as the Flaming Redhead was. They don't call her the Flaming Redhead for nothing, and believe me, she was in flames. She was ready to make a few calls to some friends we have in the Bronx and put out a contract on the guy. I read the quote in a notes column. You know how these things are. The guys who write notes columns are always surfing the 'Net, and an item that appears in one paper makes the rounds and pretty soon you're seeing it all over the place. I've always gotten along fine with Mike, and I've never noticed that he lied any more than anyone else, but this public gloating was a little disturbing. So I called Seahawks publicity director Gary Wright, a good guy whom I've known for years, and asked him what the story was. He said that Holmgren was only joking and he was quite upset that people took it seriously. This made sense to me. Case closed. To address the other points you raised, Kirk: Why would any of us expect to hear the truth about any kind of strategy? Because there are people who will tell it to us. Let me digress for a moment and relate an old story to you. It involves one of my favorite people, Weeb Ewbank. Weeb was the coach when I was the beat man for the New York Post, covering the Jets. He was as slick as they came, way ahead of the rest of the world. Practices were always open, to local and out-of-town writers alike, the understanding being that we didn't write about strategy. One day, before a Houston game, Weeb put in this strange offense, a four-wide set with both backs flanked outside the wideouts. He actually used it on the first drive and got a TD out of it. After practice I asked him, "Weeb, what if I were a Houston writer and I asked you about that formation? What would you tell me?" He said, "I'd tell you we were getting our defense ready for that crazy stuff the Oilers use." Finally, Kirk asks whether the Hawks were really going to draft Jeramy Stevens, instead of Daniel Graham all along, and that's why they spent all that time investigating the character stuff? Could be. I'll find out some time next year in an off-the-cuff conversation with Holmgren. And then I'll merely write his name down, along with those of all the other people who tell me one thing and really mean something else. Happens all the time in our business. If you're a big boy, you don't cry. Shane of Bangor, Maine, begins this way: "Miami hasn't won a Super Bowl game since 1974 and was last in the game in 1984." Guess what? There are 19 other teams that haven't won a Super Bowl since 1974 and 13 that haven't been in it since '84. Sorry, but I can't grieve for all of them, and I'm sure their fans are just as loyal as you are. Your lament about the Red Sox is better founded since I, too, am a Red Sox fan. You ask if I like the move of Daryl Gardner from DT to DE. Yes, I do, since I think the switch will be better for his chronically ailing back. Whether he has the burst and the moves to rush from the edge remains to be seen. Randy of Deland, Fla., is concerned because the Rams have projected some of their draftees into new positions. Yes, teams have done it to this extent in the past. The level of success depends a great deal on the competence of the coaching the picks get. Scott of Houston fears that the Cowboys are digging a salary cap hole by awarding big contracts to defensive people. Their theory is this -- build a good defense into one that's truly crushing, couple it with an offense that's good enough to get by, and you've got a winning formula. It worked for Baltimore. Michael of Durham, N.C., points to all the Panthers' woes of last year and wonders if this was possibly the worst NFL team ever. No, some of the old expansion teams were, before the league made it easier to stock players. I covered a club that was worse, the '75 Jets -- that team flatly gave up on too many games to count. Kevin (No. 3) of Grapevine, Tex., worries about the Bills' Drew Bledsoe in a supposedly West Coast offense. Why is a guy from Texas concerned about Buffalo? Because, as he pointed out, he's originally from Lewiston, N.Y. And how'd a guy from Lewiston get to Texas? If I were Kevin, my answer would be, "American Airlines," but Kevin is a gentleman, not a smart ass like me, and he doesn't say stuff like that. Where were we? Oh yeah, Bledsoe and the Walsh offense (forgive me if I don't use the other term because it's not correct). Well, coordinator Kevin Gilbride has his whole background in the run 'n shoot, which is pretty far removed from Bledsoe's dropback style. Either Bledsoe is an old dog who has to learn new tricks (not likely) or Gilbride has to cut back on his tendencies and tailor his attack more to Bledsoe's talents, which makes greater sense. They've certainly got the people for it, namely Eric Moulds, one of the game's finest long-ball receivers, and tight end Jay Riemersma, who's very effective coming down the seam. What they've got to do is put together a line that can hold its blocks longer, which is why they took the big tackle in the first round. Sean of Westfield, Mass., has his doubts about Tom Brady, so many in fact that he feels that New England should have traded the QB after last season. Right. A proven formula for success. Always deal a young quarterback on the verge of stardom. Then Bledsoe becomes the starter again and the Patriots would say that they made a mistake, starting Brady ahead of him last year, never mind that he won a Super Bowl. This is just too silly to even address. Kevin (No. 4) from Worcester, Mass., wants to know who will have a bigger impact, Dwight Freeney or Julius Peppers? Freeney will have 11 sacks, Peppers, eight. Freeney's tackle and assist totals will be higher, too. A word of caution. I've been wrong before. But if you can lay this bet and get decent odds, do it. Tony of Vancouver, BC, is a devoted Bears fan and offers a long evaluation of their 2001 season, ending with the feeling that he thinks they're going to have similar success this year and sneak up on people again. He didn't ask a question, but I'll give him my thoughts about the Bears anyway. They got lucky in some games. Their defense fell apart against the Eagles because Mike Brown went down with a concussion and the secondary came unglued, with nobody able to line the guys up correctly. I think they'll be a strong Super Bowl contender this season. What I didn't like most about them last year was the dinky way Jim Miller ran their attack. Chris Chandler will be the comeback player of 2002. Their offense will have life. Bombs away. Max of Kansas City wants to see a New York or D.C. Super Bowl in 2007. I wouldn't mind seeing one in NYC because I could cover it without leaving my house in Jersey. Washington? I cringe at the idea because of all the Dan Snyder quotes I'd have to read. Sure, build a dome, great. I'm all for it if the owners do it themselves and don't bill it to the taxpayers. I'm sure New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg will figure out some lofty sounding reason to make the citizens of his city pay. How will this help the ordinary guy working in a factory 40 hours a week? Not at all. The big lie. Have a comment or question for Dr. Z? Click here. |
