Passing on the Bucs

Rankings rankle a fresh regiment from Tampa Bay

This week's lynch mob bears the banner of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Always happy to welcome new faces. Thought I'd never hear from you.

These are the lucky few whom Jimmy has deemed worthy of including for further review -- Ron of Alexandria,Va., Clyde of Como, Texas, Ray of Clearwater, Fla., and Trae of Los Angeles. And in between the comments about my brainlock and creeping senility and manhood (oldmanhood), comments I actually would miss if I got through a week without them, the point was made that I was slightly in error when I ranked the Falcons fifth and the Bucs, who destroyed them, two spots lower.

That game occurred five weeks before last weekend's action. Following the Bucs' 20-6 victory, I ranked them 15 spots ahead of the Falcons. Gradually, as Atlanta put together a four-game winning streak while Tampa Bay was going 3-1, losing convincingly to Philly and nearly losing to quarterbackless Carolina, the gap narrowed. Then last week the Falcons had that fine comeback against the Steelers while the Bucs were idle, and I decided yes, at this point I truly believe that Atlanta is a better team than Tampa Bay. In October, no. Two weeks into November, yes.

As I've written many times, early in the season I try to maintain the integrity of a team getting a higher ranking over a team it has beaten. But you can't keep it going forever or Detroit would be higher than New Orleans, and Baltimore would be ranked over Denver, etc. Your whole board would be a mass of contradictions.

Topic No. 2, which drew multiple responses: Bulger vs. Warner, and the Rams in general. Mitch of Idaho Falls, Idaho, and thanks for your comments, and Robert of St. Louis feel that the improvement in the offensive line, not Bulger, is the key to the team's success. Partly true, but under Warner the O-line had to hold its blocks longer because the ball wasn't coming out as fast.

Keith of Cranston, R.I., feels that the Rams started winning because the team in general started playing better and because there was a sense of urgency and because Marshall Faulk was used more; the whole message being that football is a team sport and it's simplistic to just isolate the play of the quarterback. Everything you say could be true, but it still doesn't answer the question of what was wrong with Warner before he broke his pinkie.

Mark of San Francisco says that the statistic I used in my column, that the Rams, under Warner, never accomplished a fourth-quarter, come-from-behind victory, "of course is not true." It happened last year against the Giants. Mark, it's that smug "of course" that bothers me, the implication being that you can usually count on poor old Z to get his stats fouled up. What I wrote was that the Rams never pulled out a victory when trailing after three quarters. They led the Giants, 9-7, after three, then traded TDs in the final period. But you knew this all along, as you later indicated. You were just trying to be a smartass. Better not say hello to the Flaming Redhead if you happen to run into her. She doesn't like you. I don't, either.

Kristine of Las Vegas brings up a point that has been mentioned by a few other Warner-watchers I've talked to. Why make such a fuss over the flight of his ball when he never threw a very tight spiral to begin with? I agree with you that accuracy, especially on the move, is more important than the tightness of the spiral, but in the old days his passes were right on the money and the ball certainly had enough zip to get where he wanted it to go. No one ever replayed shots of his ball in flight and said, "Gee, look at that duck, but it got to the receiver." This season he threw ducks and he was inconsistent. The flight of his ball became an issue, at least with me, because it looked so freaky. If you don't buy all this, please explain his 66.4 rating and his one-to-eight, TD-to-pick, ratio.

Three sharp-eyed TV watchers, Rick of Eugene, Ore., Norm of Toronto and Andrew of Ulsan, South Korea, noticed the odd exchange Warner and Bulger had on the sideline last Sunday following Bulger's winning TD pass. They want to know if something sinister is afoot here.

At the time I was busy with my charts and glanced at the thing casually without making too much of it. In answer to your queries, I ran the tape back a few times and even put it in slo-mo. This is what I saw:

There were two sideline exchanges between the two. The first one came while the ref was still under the hood doing his review number. Warner, showing much joy, threw his arms around Bulger, who was polite, but hardly cordial. There was a bit of chit-chat and Bulger turned away. The second one came a minute or so later, after the TD became official. Warner gave the kid a brief hug and was fairly jubilant. Bulger said something and looked away. Then he gave Warner a slight shove on the shoulder and Warner seemed to lose his balance, coming back with a kind of, "Hey, what's going on?" response. Some tall guy wearing a black shirt was between the two and he seemed to hold Warner off with the back of his hand on Kurt's chest. Then Bulger turned away.

I made a few calls to St. Louis but no one seemed to know what, if anything, to attach to this videodrama. Or if they did, they weren't talking about it. So I can only speculate:

1) Bulger was simply exhausted. Earlier sideline shots of him seemed to indicate it. He was breathing a big sigh of relief when shown in an early iso.

2) Warner was annoying him with all the hugging and stuff. Maybe he read it as insincere. Maybe the kid's a real jerk.

3) Perhaps Warner said something he didn't like.

4) Maybe Bulger doesn't like Warner, and this could be the start of something serious, or at least its first public revelation.

5) Maybe it's none of the above.

6) Here's one from my Redheaded analyst -- "One guy was a happy little flutter-by. The other one was a sourpuss. I like the flutter-by better."

Sorry, but I'm afraid that's the best I can do at this time, but I will stay on top of it and report back with future findings.

Big Pauly of Rocklin, Calif., -- and yes, I do remember you from a few weeks ago; how'd you manage to get on Jimmy's good side? -- wonders why the Broncos' defensive coach, Ray Rhodes, didn't go to Plan B against the Raiders when Plan A obviously wasn't working. Precisely my question, and I wrote about it, at length, in my rankings piece. Innovative thinking, both in the rush and coverage depts., was sadly lacking.

J.P. of Monroe, La., wonders why the name of Rickey Jackson, his choice of greatest New Orleans Saint ever, never gets mentioned for the Hall of Fame. For a while Jackson was on the preliminary list, but I don't think he ever made it to the final 15 ... maybe once, but I'm not sure. My personal choice for greatest Saint is Sam Mills, and I'm pushing very hard for his enshrinement. If and when he makes it, I'll worry about Jackson. I gave the Flaming Redhead your love, as requested. She says to send gumbo instead.

Sean of Westbrook, Conn., wants to know how long it takes me to review tapes. Normally six hours per game, if its fairly tight, and a bit less if it's a blowout, because I don't do the same type of breakdown during garbage time at the end. And I don't get to do all the games. I don't have enough VCRs for that massive undertaking. Usually I'm good for eight games a week, total. Four live, unless the Sunday nighter is a real stiff, four via the taper.

A leftover suggestion about how to modify and improve the kicking portion of the game comes from Daniel of Dartmouth, Mass., and his idea is to get rid of it completely. Kickoffs, punts, field goals, the whole schmeer. First of all, you'd put a lot of people out of work, and as a strong union man I don't like that at all. Secondly, you'd be left with a game that would be boring, boring, boring. I like the change of pace that kicking, in its many varieties, provides (except for the extra point).

Bob, a Steelers fan from Albuquerque, wants to know if Tommy Maddox is for real. So far, sure. Why not? I think that maybe the Arena League, with its slam-bang action and sawed-off field, might be a better breeding ground for NFL quarterbacks than people realize. Instant action, quick decisions, the need to keep the scoring going, because the other guys surely will. It's worth investigating.

"You're a crusty bugger," begins a fairly lively entry from a gentleman named Leigh, and right away I knew he was from some area of the Commonwealth, and sure enough, his dateline read Calgary. His question -- why do some receivers, such as Tony Gonzalez, get mugged out there, while others get the benefit of a flag if they're lightly breathed upon? Why is the officiating, in the area of pass interference, so inconsistent? Puzzles me, too. NFL officials, with all their meetings and guidelines from the league, etc., never seem to be able to agree on this infraction. It varies from crew to crew, and a smart defensive coach lets his guys know if the crew working the game likes to call it loose or tight, and then has his players act accordingly. I prefer a crew that plays it loose. Make the receivers earn their money, I say, but I am, as you mentioned, a crusty bugger.

And from Canada we move to the British Isles, and let's have a nice New Jersey welcome for Don of London. He wants to know if I agree with his feeling that the greatness of the Packers lies in their ability to surmount a succession of injuries that would positively decimate other teams. Absolutely. Next, he would like my assessment of the following rookies -- Marques Anderson, Najeh Davenport, Marcus Wilkins. I love Anderson. A real action safety. Good ball awareness, and a hitter, too. I've seen Wilkins have some decent moments as an edge rusher in the nickel, and he seems to be fairly active on the coverage units. Davenport's a size and speed guy, but he still seems to be in the learning stage. Hey, didn't you forget one? How about the fifth-round draft choice, DE Aaron Kampman? A solid starter for a good D-line, a real worker with a relentless kind of pass rush.

Finally, a serious question -- "Do you know of any decent UK reds out there?" About 25 years ago I toured the vineyards of Kent for a piece I was doing, and what I found was an overload of the mousy little lesser German varietals, notably Muller-Thurgau, which is a white. It became a sort of quest to find a good red. Finally, one guy, and I wish I could remember the name of his winery, said he had an experimental plot of Pinot Noir, but the wine wasn't worth showing. I begged, he relented, we tasted some barrel samples. The color was very light, kind of like a rose. The wine was clean but lacking in real Pinot character. He said that the soil just didn't lend itself to red varieties, and the climate was too rainy. A few years ago the Redhead and I sampled wines on the way from Bath, down to Cornwall. Coxley, Moorlynch in Somerset, the Cornish Wine Trail, Bob Lindo in Camel Valley -- I have my tasting notes in front of me now, and I'm looking for a decent red, but the few we tasted weren't very good. Generally, the most successful things we sampled were the French-American hybrids, notably Seyval Blanc, which is a white. Sorry.

Don't despair, though. If you can last long enough, wait for Global Warming to really kick in. French and Italian wines will be like the North African ones. Germany will produce luscious, full-bodied reds. Britain will be a major wine-producing area, just as it was when Chaucer was knocking 'em down, and there will be interesting things coming from Norway and Sweden. I won't be around to see it, but you might.

Have a comment or question for Dr. Z? Click here.

 

Related information

Multimedia

Visit Video Plus for the latest audio and video