 |
| |
|
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Guru loses his touch Billick's inability to find a solid QB is a head-scratcherPosted: Friday July 25, 2003 2:37 PM
Greg of Eldersburg, Md., thinks the Ravens' Brian Billick is "a damn good coach." He wants to know what I think of him: "An excellent coach or just average?" He also asks what I see for the Ravens this year: "Starting to climb back out of the hole, or nothing extraordinary?" Well, you sure look at both sides of things, Greg. I was expecting: "Will you provide a serious answer or the same old blah blah?" OK, your query was so evenhandedly framed that I got out my Billick chart and my list of the Ravens' free-agent acquisitions, backed up by all my study guides and cue cards, to provide the ultimate sensible, evenhanded answer. Billick did a terrific job three years ago, winning the Super Bowl without an offense. It could be argued that his defensive assistants were really the guys who did the good work, but Billick was the one who hired them and oversaw the operation. Keeping the team competitive last year when everyone figured the Ravens would take the pipe was a worthy achievement, and he did a good job with young players. But, and here comes the sneaky right cross, his hang-up seems to be the quarterback spot, which is ironic because he came to Baltimore with a reputation as a coach with a real feel for the position. But in four years he's had six different starting QBs, and now, in his fifth season, it looks like rookie Kyle Boller is being groomed to be No. 7. Here's my chart on Billick's four years of QBs and their ratings:
Enough about Billick. How do I see the Ravens doing? Well, I liked their draft OK. They didn't do much in free agency. They'll have Ray Lewis back. QB is a question mark. How does 8-8 or 9-7 sound? Wow, what a long diatribe on the Ravens! I need something short and snappy as my No. 2 hitter, and here comes just the thing ... from Michael of Kilkenny, Ireland (Hey, I think the Redhead and I will be going to the Ould Sod on our vacation next spring). Michael Me Boy would like to know the "must-watch" games in Week 1. He's doing just what I do, lining up the roster of what to watch on the dish. Here are my premier selections, in order of preference: 1) Rams at Giants (a strictly personal choice ... the game intrigues me), 2) Bucs at Eagles on Monday night, 3) Raiders at Titans on Sunday night, 4) Jets at Redskins on Thursday night. Bob of Des Moines, Iowa --and thanks for your comments, Bob -- asks if Troy Edwards will be able to fill the shoes of Az-Zahir Hakim on the Rams? Bob could have asked that last year, and the answer would have been no, Edwards doesn't have Az's explosiveness. The answer is still no. Cary of Memphis would like to see Randy Gradishar on my roster of top linebackers. Sorry, I listed guys I thought were better, but he'll be a strong candidate for the Hall of Fame this year and I won't oppose him. What's keeping him out is that no 3-4 ILB has ever been elected to the Hall. First, I want to see Harry Carson make it. Then I'll worry about Gradishar. One thing that annoys the selectors is the way the Broncos' stat-keepers used to pump up their guys' numbers with with a phony and inflated number of tackles and assists. Adolph of New Orleans is mad at me because Chuck Bednarik didn't make my list. Bednarik was a fine player. Gradishar was a fine player. Lee Roy Jordan was a fine player. So was Bill George. And others. The dozen I picked were my absolute elite. Fine players and then some. Rob of Miami feels that Michael Irvin should be in the Hall of Fame but won't make it because the selectors will flunk him on citizenship. Some will, no doubt of it. I don't agree with doing that. I'll flunk him because I thought other receivers were better. Ken of Vancouver wonders how I didn't include Seattle as one of the teams that has improved the most, especially since the 'Hawks now have, in Ray Rhodes, "the top defensive coordinator in the league." Well, their draft was fairly decent, and I like two of their defensive pickups, Chike Okeafor and Randall Godfrey. Yeah, they'll be better, but I still think others will be ... uh ... I can't say more better, can I? Others will be, let's see, better still. How's that? As for Rhodes, let's travel down the coastline to San Francisco, where a grumpy fellow named Mookie presents the following, and I'll reprint his e-mail in its entirety because I kind of like the way he expressed himself: "Every year or two I hear about what a great move it is to bring Ray Rhodes in as a defensive coordinator. During the offseason, everyone always talks about what a great coach he is. After the regular season begins you hear rumblings about the defense not meeting expectations, and then after the season Ray is let go and he shows up somewhere else as the 'defense savior.' What is going on? Is he a great coach who is failed by his players not making plays or is he over-hyped? Is his reputation for one or two good years long ago just carrying him from season to season? Does anyone else see this pattern? Does anyone else get this, or am I just imagining it?" At first I almost felt the way you did, kind of like Ray was a once-great who really hasn't done much recently (although he hasn't really been fired everywhere. In Denver he quit). Then I got out my records. Since he stepped down as head coach of the Packers after the '99 season, he went to Washington and lifted the Skins from 30th in overall defense to fourth. The next year Marty Schottenheimer arrived and Rhodes departed. He went to Denver in 2001 and lifted a Broncos team that had been 24th in overall defense and last in the NFL in pass defense the previous season to eighth and 16th, respectively. Last year, in his second season in Denver, the Broncos ended up sixth (and 17th) -- although the actual yardage and points allowed were slightly greater. But those are just numbers. I think what we remember is the way the Broncos slumped in the second half of the season ... Rich Gannon going 34-for-38 against them, the Chargers' LaDainian Tomlinson running for 220 yards against them, and then, on the heels of those mishaps Rhodes quitting to go to Seattle. It left a bad taste. Ed of New Bedford, Mass., is concerned about the Patriots' nose tackle situation, as well he should be. I certainly would if I had a nose worth tackling. Ed asks if undersized rookie Dan Klecko can do it, following in the line of his undersized father, Joe, and Jim Burt, whom Bill Belichick had with the Giants? Whoa there. Hold on. Joe Klecko was NOT undersized. He was sized just right. Burt was not a really big nose tackle, but he was adequately proportioned and as technically correct as any middle man who ever lived. I haven't seen Dan Klecko, although I will early next week. They say he's a scrapper. We'll see. Keith of Cincinnati, who seems to be an insanely dedicated Bengals fan, gives me around nine reasons why his team could be in some kind of contention this year. Too lengthy to list, but I will mention his last one -- Brian Simmons will be a better OLB than the departed Takeo Spikes. Uh, no. I thought the Bengals had a fine draft. They were more active in free agency than I can ever remember. Marvin Lewis as a head coach? Jury's still out. I haven't played the season game by game yet, but off the top of my head and with a little imagination I can see them around 7-9. Thanks for your nice comments about my work. Eric, a Vikings fan from Huntsville, Ala., wants to know how the Minnesota running backs will line up, now that Michael Bennett is down. I think Onterrio Smith will get first crack. He's got the most ability, but bad character references coming out of college. Speaking of bad characters, Duncan of Fairfax, Va., wants my thoughts on Rush Limbaugh being added to ESPN's Sunday NFL Countdown. "Personally, I'm getting ready to break out the pitchfork and find me a couple of torches," he writes, "but I suppose I'll have to make do with just not watching the show." Careful about hints of terrorism, Dunc. Not only the FBI, but the Justice Department monitors columns such as these for any hints of terrorist threats. To say nothing of the Department of Agriculture and the Attorney General's Office, which is exactly what I'd like to say about them. Not that I don't agree with everything you've said. I most certainly do. It's funny, on Thursday afternoon I did an interview on ESPN Radio, only because I wanted to present my Limbaugh views right up front. So I ranted and raved for a while about how ABC set the idiot-tone with its Dennis Miller venture. But Miller, while being a football ignoramus, at least wasn't mean, in direct contrast to this Limbaugh character, who's not only stupid and nasty, but stupid and nasty at the top of his voice. The pity of it is that I used to enjoy watching Countdown, but of course I won't tune in anymore. And what do you think the radio guy said? Right on cue he came in with, "See that, we're all talking about him." To which I retorted that we talk about murderers, too, and thugs and all manner of aberrant behavior, which doesn't mean that we want to include it as expert commentary on the football scene. I hope to God this is the last reference to Limbaugh that I'll have to make. From Rob of Milwaukee: "Doc, does the Redhead read over your shoulder as you write your pieces? If my wife did that, it would drive me bonkers." C'mon, Rob, we're not running a freak show here. I've already described the way it works. Sometimes I bounce a line or two off her to get her reaction. Then when I've finished the piece I let her have a read before I file it. It's the same as any writer would do, anyone, that is, who has a wife smarter than he is. Alfie G. of Santa Monica, Calif., wants my take on the Kobe Bryant thing. No comment until the courts decide. I don't want to prejudice the outcome; they are all, as you know, avid readers of my mailbag. I will say this, though: Please don't tell me how sad it is because he's supposed to be a role model for the kids of America. Their role models should be their parents or their teachers or those who have done something really significant or heroic in their lives. We can admire the great talent of the people in the arena, but someone doesn't become a role model simply because he can stuff a ball in a hoop. Now onto last week's column and my suggestions for reforming college athletics. William of Houston agrees with me and wants to know if the schools could ever change their approach and pay the football majors to major in football, and award scholarships to the players who need the education. No. There is too much money to be made from the labor force as it now exists. Henry of Chicago fears that my plan wouldn't work because no one could match the under-the-table money the big schools would dish out. No one can do it now, either... if not flat-out cash then inducements, rewards, awards, sympathetic teachers who concoct oral exams, etc. Ben of Columbus, an Ohio State student I'd guess, doesn't like my highfalutin tone, although I can't really find an area in which he significantly disagrees with me. Ben, I think I made it clear that I'm no better than the next guy, and when I had a chance to sign up for all those cockamamie courses at Stanford -- Football Methods, Baseball Methods, Track & Field Methods, etc. -- jumped at it. Nobody's ripping the ballplayers, let's just cut out all the hypocrisy, OK? Patrick of Littleton, Colo., says he sacrificed the chance to win a national championship in a middle distance or distance race because of his dedication to his major, Electrical Engineering ... "but for nothing in the world would I have changed my field of study for what you proposed." Nobody's asking you to. All I said was that there is a choice to be made. Major in your sport and get paid for it, or major in, well, electrical engineering and get paid in the form of a free education, which would include grad school. Thanks, incidentally, for your kind sentiment ... even if it started with, "Otherwise." Sports Illustrated senior writer Paul Zimmerman covers the NFL for the magazine and SI.com. His "Inside Football" column and Mailbag appear weekly on SI.com. To send a question to Dr. Z, click here.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
