Thank You Tony Kornheiser

Earlier this morning, I read a column in the Washington Post by Sally Jenkins on the delusion of certain Redskins fans. Sally, as Tony Kornheiser just pointed out on his radio show, lives in New York and is a huge Giants fan.

There is one specific point in Jenkins' article on which I need to comment. Jenkins wrote that the Redskins have been inept despite the fifth easiest schedule in the league. When I read that line my blood pressure rose. For the disinterested reader I list the Redskins' schedule thus far and their opponent's position in the standings and their current record. You tell me if it looks easy.


Chicago (1st) 8 - 3 Redskins W
Dallas (1st) 7 - 4 Redskins W
Seattle (1st) 9 - 2 Redskins W
Denver (1st) 9 - 2 Redskins L
KC (2nd) 7 - 4 Redskins L
SF (4th) 2 - 9 Redskins W
NY (1st) 7 - 4 Redskins L
Philly (4th) 5 - 6 Redskins W
Tampa (2nd) 7 - 4 Redskins L
Oakland (4th) 4 - 7 Redskins L
Chargers (2nd)7 - 4 Redskins L

So, the Redskins have played five first-place teams and three second-place teams in eleven games. Their opponents' combined record is 72 wins and 49 losses. Has Sally Jenkins lost her mind? That has to be one of the toughest schedules in the NFL.

My blood pressure rose as I read her column and stayed there until I turned on Sports Talk 980 on the net and heard Kornheiser call her out on this exact point. Kornheiser screamed, "On what planet is that the fifth easiest schedule in the NFL?" Thank you, Tony. If there were a BCS for the NFL, the Skins would be going to a prime Bowl game.

Did Anyone Notice?

...that Counter Trey got all of his NFC predictions correct this week; the first week of the remaining six?

Skins game not a must win, but it would have been nice to hold a 10-point lead
Giants lost
Cowboys lost
Bucs lost
Panthers won

Things are falling into place for the Redskins. Their fate is still in their hands. Depsite the loss yesterday, they finally won a turnover battle--only the second time this year--and they won it decisively. They won it because they were able to get pressure on the quarterback despite facing a very good offensive line. They were able to get pressure on the quarterback because they got Cornelius Griffin back on the field.

Griffin played a substantial amount of the game so it looks like he's healthy enough to continue. That is good news as the Redskins have finally gotten to the softest part of their schedule (and what a brutal schedule it has been until now. I'd like to know why the League that wants parity made a team that was 6-10 last year face this kind of competition). Despite all of the injuries, they should be able to take advantage of the rest of the schedule with the players they have now.

They should easily win their next two even though they are on the road for both. If they don't win they are not a legitimate playoff team this year. Then, they will come home for two games with a record of 7-6 against Dallas and New York. They will win both of those at home. Then they will head to Philadelphia where the McNabb-less Eagles will be playing out the string. That's 10-6 and the NFC East title.

Timing is Everything (or, Tony Kornheiser Had a Premature Calculation)

When the Redskins had five wins and three losses, Tony Kornheiser wrote a column for the Washington Post in which he said—somewhat tongue-in-cheek—that the Redskins would run the table in their last eight games. I thought he was kidding, but his comments on Sport Talk 980 confirmed that he wasn’t. Redskins’ fans would like to see their team earn a playoff spot, preferably by winning the division, but even now the Redskins do not have to run the table to accomplish that. This post will focus on the likely playoff outcome in the NFC.

The Redskins have lost their last two games and five of their last seven, and you would think from the message boards and pundits’ comments that they have been eliminated from the playoffs. That is pure nonsense. This is the NPL, the National Parity League.

Last year it only took eight wins to earn a playoff spot in the NFC. This year it will take more, but the Redskins are already two games better than last year and this year’s five wins were earned against an excruciatingly difficult schedule and despite some of the worst luck in the league. Now, everywhere I turn, people are saying this Sunday’s game against the Chargers is a must-win game. That’s just more nonsense. I expect it to be close, but this is not a must-win game. The Chargers play in the AFC and cannot take a playoff spot from the Redskins.

Obviously, overall record is the most important determinant in getting into the playoffs, so a win against the Chargers would be great if only to shut the pundits up, but with parity and six games left, several teams in the NFC East and South will wind up tied at the top of their division at the end of the year. The Redskins most important remaining games are their last five, which are against NFC teams. With apologies to Kornheiser, they actually have a good shot at running the table in their last five.

As I’ve written before, the Redskins have moved past the most difficult part of their schedule. Their upcoming game against the Chargers is the most difficult one they have to play in the second half. The Redskins have already beaten the first-place Bears, Cowboys (in Dallas), and Seahawks. They came within one overturned safety from beating the first-place Broncos in Denver where the Broncos are 6-0 this year. Their only blow out loss was to a first-place Giants team on the road, who played with extreme emotion after their beloved owner died. They were an unsuccessfully challenged, two-point conversion from beating the first-place Bucs in Tampa. Could their schedule have been any more difficult than that? Whose schedule was worse? Out of ten games, the Redskins have played five against teams that are currently in first place in their division.

But, as unkind as the schedule makers have been to the Redskins thus far, the National Parity League has set up the schedule for a dramatic finish for the NFC East and South. As they say, timing is everything. The Redskins schedule gets easy after Sunday and the Giants and Cowboys last six games looks a lot like the Redskins first half (predicted wins and losses, if any, appear in the last column).

The Redskins (5-5) Schedule
Sun, Nov 27 San Diego CBS 1:00 PM
Sun, Dec 4 at St. Louis FOX 4:05 PM W
Sun, Dec 11 at Arizona FOX 4:05 PM W
Sun, Dec 18 Dallas FOX 1:00 PM W
Sat, Dec 24 NY Giants FOX 1:00 PM W
Sun, Jan 1 at Philadelphia FOX 4:15 PM W

The Redskins will beat the Rams and Cardinals. Then they face the Cowboys and Giants at home where they are very tough to beat. Then they finish the regular season against the team the Giants beat last week—the McNabb-less Eagles. You can put the Redskins down for 5-1 in their last six. If a Higher Authority walked across the Potomac and granted Joe Gibbs only five wins in his next six regular-season games, Gibbs would take the loss this week against the Chargers.

Redskins finish 10-6

The Giants (7-3) Schedule
Sun, Nov 27 at Seattle FOX 4:15 PM L
Sun, Dec 4 Dallas FOX 1:00 PM L
Sun, Dec 11 at Philadelphia FOX 4:05 PM
Sat, Dec 17 Kansas City CBS 5:00 PM
Sat, Dec 24 at Washington FOX 1:00 PM L
Sat, Dec 31 at Oakland ESPN 8:00 PM

Put the Giants down for losses to Seattle, the Redskins, and probably the Cowboys. There is even a good chance they will lose one more than that. Eli will be a very good quarterback some day, but not good enough to make the playoffs this year.

Giants finish 10-6

The Cowboys (7-3) Schedule
Thu, Nov 24 Denver CBS 4:00 PM L
Sun, Dec 4 at NY Giants FOX 1:00 PM W
Sun, Dec 11 Kansas City CBS 4:15 PM
Sun, Dec 18 at Washington FOX 1:00 PM L
Sat, Dec 24 at Carolina FOX 1:00 PM L
Sun, Jan 1 St. Louis ESPN 8:30 PM

(As you can see I had written part of this before Thanksgiving.)
The Cowboys finish 10-6.

The Bucs (7-3) Schedule
Sun, Nov 27 Chicago FOX 1:00 PM L
Sun, Dec 4 at New Orleans FOX 1:00 PM W
Sun, Dec 11 at Carolina FOX 1:00 PM L
Sat, Dec 17 at New England FOX 1:30 PM L
Sat, Dec 24 Atlanta FOX 1:00 PM L
Sun, Jan 1 New Orleans FOX 1:00 PM W

Bucs finish 9-7 and are eliminated from the playoffs.

The Panthers (7-3) Schedule
Sun, Nov 27 at Buffalo FOX 1:00 PM W
Sun, Dec 4 Atlanta FOX 1:00 PM W/L
Sun, Dec 11 Tampa Bay FOX 1:00 PM W
Sun, Dec 18 at New Orleans FOX 1:00 PM W
Sat, Dec 24 Dallas FOX 1:00 PM W
Sun, Jan 1 at Atlanta FOX 1:00 PM W/L

The Panthers could run the table, but probably split with Atlanta, finish 12-4 or 11-5, and win the division.

The Falcons (7-4) Schedule
Sun, Dec 4 at Carolina FOX 1:00 PM W/L
Mon, Dec 12 New Orleans ABC 9:00 PM W
Sun, Dec 18 at Chicago ESPN 8:30 PM L
Sat, Dec 24 at Tampa Bay FOX 1:00 PM W
Sun, Jan 1 Carolina FOX 1:00 PM W/L

The Falcons finish 10-6.

This is a reasonable outcome, but there are many paths to the same point. If it unfolds like this, here is how the tie-breakers would work out:

The Redskins with the NFC East based on head-to-head tie breaker (sweep of Cowboys and split with Giants). The two most important games left on the Redskins schedule are against the Cowboys and Giants, and both are at home.

Panthers win the NFC South and get home field advantage throughout the playoffs.

Seattle and Chicago win the West and North, respectively. Chicago probably wins eleven games.

The Cowboys and Falcons win the wild cards with the Falcons playing in Chicago and the Cowboys in DC. But, if the Bears finish with the same record as the Panthers, the Bears would get the bye based on a win against the Panthers, and the Falcons would play the wild-card game in Carolina.

If you think this sounds crazy, remember this: Before the Tampa game the pundits were saying the Bucs were dead. Now, they are considered a Super Bowl contender. After the Bears lost to the Redskins the Bears were considered dead. Now, they are considered a Super Bowl contender. And, weren't the Vikings actually buried a few weeks ago? Things change very quickly in the NPL.

Other Reasons for Optimism
Is that it Counter Trey? Is that all you got, just that the schedule gets easier? Well, no, there is much more.

I wrote about their poor luck in getting fumble recoveries. Regression towards the mean says they will improve on that. Regression towards the mean also says that the calls have to start going their way. Those are the “luck” issues.

Then, there are the more fundamental issues. First, I previously wrote that Joe Gibbs's record in games played after November 30 is 47 wins and 15 losses. That is, when it counts the most, Gibbs finds a way to win and that includes a 3-2 record last year with a lesser team against a tougher schedule. Did anyone check the calendar?

Second, people are wondering this year what happened to the vaunted Redskins defense and the genius of Gregg Williams, Assistant Head Coach of the Defense. Well, coaches need tools. Everyone says that great offenses have outstanding triplets—quarterback, running back, and wide receiver. Well, every great defense has outstanding triplets, too. A defense’s triplets are one outstanding player on every unit—defensive line, linebacker, and secondary.

The Redskins defense has outstanding triplets. They have Cornelius Griffin, a pro bowl defensive lineman; LaVar Arrington, a pro bowl linebacker; and Sean Taylor, a soon-to-be pro bowl safety. The main problem with the Redskins defense is that their triplets have not played any significant time together in any game this year. Arrington spent most of the first seven games on the bench; he didn’t get his first start until game eight. Griffin has not played since the sixth game. Taylor missed game nine (against the Bucs) and parts of others. In games when just two of the three triplets played any significant time together in the same game, the Redskins record is 5 – 3 ( Griffin and Taylor: 4-2 in the first six games; Arrington and Taylor: 1-1 in games eight and ten) and two of those three losses were very controversial (Denver and Tampa).

The news is that Griffin practiced today for the first time in five weeks. If Griffin plays this Sunday, it will be the first time all year that the Redskins D-triplets will be on the field at the same time.

So, the Redskins schedule gets much easier and the other NFC East contenders' schedules get more difficult; the Redskins luck is about to turn; Joe Gibbs works his December and January magic; and they get three of their star defenders on the field together for the first time all year. It sounds like good reason for optimism to me. And, anything can happen in the NPL playoffs.

Raiders 16 - Redskins 13: Ugly in Many Ways

Congratulations are in order for Norv Turner, coach of the Oakland Raiders. Turner coached the Redskins for seven years, but yesterday was Norv’s first win in a close game in Washington.

Of course, Turner did his best to imitate the coach that compiled a 49 and 59 record in Washington, the coach who regularly grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory. At one point, Norv declined a penalty that would have pushed the Redskins out of field goal range. The Redskins wound up getting that field goal for their thirteenth point and what should have been an insurmountable 13 to 3 lead at half time. Maybe the Redskins stopped playing because they thought Norv would find a way to lose no matter what they did. But, Norv got a lot of help to avoid succumbing to his nature.

The Three Constants
Ah, the Redskins; those frustrating Redskins. Every week is a little different, but with three constants. The first constant is the inability to put pressure on the quarterback. I have heard the term arm-chair quarterback before, but I didn’t know that it referred to the Redskins’ opposing QB sitting in a La-Z-Boy waiting for a receiver to break free. Gregg Williams is a great defensive coach, but even geniuses have a hard time solving simple algebra without tools. The Redskins front four on defense is weak and has been for some time. Their best D-lineman and this year’s sacks leader—Cornelius Griffin—hasn’t played in four games and that has hurt, but the D-line is still the weak link on this team. Last year, Gregg made up for that lack of talent with well-disguised blitzes and cornerback Shawn Springs wound up leading the team with six sacks. I cannot figure out why those blitzes are no longer disguised. It seems the other guys have picked up every one of the Skins corner and safety blitzes this year and burned them for big plays.

One has to wonder, then, what a playmaker like LaVar Arrington is doing on the bench on third-down passing downs. Did you see Arrington knife through the defensive line when the Raiders had a third and one from Washington’s three-yard line? Arrington cut through like he did when Penn State played 1-AA teams. He slammed Lamont Jordan to the ground with a high hit for a four-yard loss and kept the Skins’ hopes alive. If he can do that on running plays, he could do that on passing downs. To be fair, his replacement on third downs, Chris Clemons, did hit Kerry Collins’ arm to force the interception and TD by Lemar Marshall yesterday; maybe there is a way to get them both on the field on passing downs.

The second constant is the Redskins turnovers—specifically the fumbles. Yesterday, the Redskins lost the turnover battle again. They have won the turnover battle in only one game this year. If you told me that fact before the season, I would have said they’d be lucky to be 3 and 7 at this point. Was Portis always a fumbler? I didn’t think so. Yesterday he took points off the Redskins board when he fumbled from within field goal range, and he put points on the Raiders board when he fumbled deep in Redskins territory. Portis has put the ball on the ground several times in big moments in his two years as a Redskin and all of those games were close. Was Brunell always a fumbler? I didn’t think so. This year, Brunell’s fumbles in Denver (Denver +7 off) and in Kansas City at KC’s seven yard line were the difference in those games.

The last constant is bad officiating. Now, I am not a paranoid fan. I do not believe there is a conspiracy against the Redskins. But, at some point, when it happens repeatedly, and it is all one-sided, you have to wonder, that’s all. You have to wonder. There were three horrible calls in close games last year that cost the Redskins victories against Dallas, Philadelphia, and Green Bay. If the officials got just two of them right, the Redskins would have finished 8 – 8 and played at least one playoff game last year.

This year there have been three horrible calls that have accounted for the margin of defeat in losses to Denver, Tampa Bay and now Oakland. I was at the game yesterday. I saw the fumble at the goal line by Lamont Jordan that the Redskins recovered. And, I TIVO’d the game yesterday and watched the replay of that fumble. Once again, the officials didn’t see it. They ruled that Jordan was down by contact and gave the ball back to the Raiders. After that fumble and another heroic goal-line stand by the defense, the Raiders kicked a field goal that gave them their first lead in the 59th minute of the game. To be down by contact, the player must clearly be down on the ground after contact with the defense, or the referee has to blow the whistle. Neither of those things happened prior to Jordan putting the ball on the ground. That is not disputable; watch the replay.

I know I am biased, but highlighting these calls is not selective perception. In every instance, the television commentators have been a “reality check;” they had seen it the same way as I did including Troy Aikman last week against Tampa Bay and Dick Enberg and Rich Gannon this week. I also found it interesting that Boomer Esiason, who presumably gets paid by the NFL to write a column on NFL.com, wrote this (and there are several other examples from independent analysts):

…I've looked at Mike Alstott’s two-point conversion from last week's win over the Redskins at least 10 different times. I still do not see where that football broke the plane of the goal line. Washington was shortchanged. That's all I'm going to say…

It’s rare for a columnist who is as wrapped up in the NFL as Esiason is to criticize the NFL this way, which is probably why he cut it short.

Another reason that I know it is not selective perception: I challenge anyone to name a call that went the Redskins way in the past two years that made up the margin of victory for them. If I were you, I wouldn’t waste too much time on it. So, that is 0 for 6 in the past two years, and that doesn’t include calls like Joey Galloway’s out-of-bounds catch that gave the Bucs seven points last week, which was ruled an unreviewable force out. On average, it would take you sixty-four sets of six coin flips to get either six-straight heads or tails, so the Redskins have absorbed about sixty-four years worth of unlucky calls. If it happens again this year, I’m going to use the “C” word.

Look, I know the referees are human and will occasionally make a bad call. I know that they are generally nice, honest guys. I know that teams should put themselves in position to prevent one or two bad calls from costing them a game. But, I also know that for a league that has worked extremely hard to achieve parity, the NFL does not do its best to get the best officiating, and that is shameful. With parity comes close games. In close games, one bad call can turn a legitimate win into an unjust loss. With parity one loss could mean the difference between a championship and last place finish. If the NFL wants parity it needs the best officiating possible and the best way to achieve that is by allowing virtually unlimited replay reviews, increasing the number of camera angles, and ensuring that all tape is recorded in the highest definition possible. Of course, as a Redskins fan, I would gladly accept the alternative to parity: Get rid of the salary cap.

The Volatility
Now, if these are the constants, what has been different for the Redskins from game-to-game? Well, practically everything else. They have become very unpredictable. Here is the latest example: Against the best defense in the NFL—Tampa—they put up 35 points on close to 400 yards on the road; then, they follow that with a thirteen-point, 246-yard effort at home against one of the worst defenses in the NFL, and seven of those points were scored by the defense. At Tampa, the Taylor-less Skins allow 36 points against a pretty poor offense and yesterday against a good offense, the Skins’ defense scores a touchdown, has two great, fourth-quarter goal line stands, and limits the Raiders to sixteen points. Lately, the Redskins play just well enough to lose and it’s for different, inexplicable reasons each week. Weaknesses one week are fixed the next, but then a new problem is exposed.

The Redskins will not be able to fix their pass rush this year. About the best they can do is get Griffin healthy and maybe work the linebackers—especially Arrington— in blitz packages a little differently. But, why can’t they recover a fumble? I talked about the Redskins terrible record of recovering fumbles here. At that point, they had recovered only six of thirty-one fumbles. Yesterday, the ball hit the turf four times and the Redskins recovered NONE. There is no reason that they shouldn’t get half of the balls that hit the ground.

They can, and probably will, still make the playoffs, but they have to fix the turnover problem. I’ll have more on the playoff picture later in the week including an evaluation of the contenders’ remaining schedule.

Vicious, Cheap, Illegal, and Ugly:
I did not see Mike Sellers get hit. He is the Redskins H-back and special teamer. What I saw live from section 118 was a Redskins player flat on the ground after a punt, barely moving, and a Raiders player standing over him pumping his fist and celebrating the injury. Yes, that’s correct. The player standing over Sellers was not celebrating a great play; he was celebrating the fact that Mike Sellers was hurt. I was able to see the hit later on TIVO.

I’m happy to say that the officials caught and penalized the Raiders for the illegal block in the back on the punt return. The player who made the illegal block was a nobody rookie from Virginia named Isaiah Ekejiuba who wears number 50. The player standing over Sellers and celebrating his injury was someone else—a nobody fourth-year player named Tim Johnson who wears number 51. Johnson’s outrageous taunt was not penalized and Johnson was allowed to continue playing.

It turns out that Sellers—a very significant contributor to the Redskins offense and special teams this year—broke a rib and will probably miss playing time. It was initially feared that he also suffered serious kidney damage on the hit and was rushed to the hospital after the game. That should motivate the league to review the film. Unfortunately, CBS did not show Johnson’s celebration. I hope more tape of that play exists. If so, I am confident the NFL will fine and suspend Johnson. Consider this a small contribution to make Johnson pay for what he did because I have not seen anyone else write about it. If the NFL does nothing, then Norv turner should prove to everyone what a great guy he is by suspending Johnson himself. It is one thing for ridiculous fans to cheer when an opposing team’s player is seriously injured—Michael Irvin in Philadelphia comes to mind—it is another thing for a professional football player to stand over a seriously injured player, taunt, and cheer the injury.

Redskins This Week

As usual, I will be cheering loudly from section 118 at FedEx this Sunday.

The Redskins, Giants and Cowboys should all win this week, so the Skins should remain one game back of the division lead. Tampa Bay should lose this week. Given Tampa's remaining schedule, the memory of last week's bitter loss to the Bucs should fade as quickly as the Bucs playoff hopes.

I'll have more to say on all of the playoff contenders' remaining schedules next week, but here is a preview: It will be a miracle for the Colts to go undefeated. In fact, I expect them to lose this week against the Bengals. They are finished with the easy part of their schedule.

The Patriot Act

Congress is having some trouble renewing the Patriot Act in its present form, which makes today's email from The Federalist Patriot very timely:

The Federalist Patriot
Founders' Quote Daily

"Liberty is not to be enjoyed, indeed it cannot exist, without the habits of just subordination; it consists, not so much in removing all restraint from the orderly, as in imposing it on the violent."

-- Fisher Ames (Essay on Equality, 15 December 1801)

Reference: Works of Fisher Ames, W. B. Allen, ed., vol. 1 (256)

The Chutzpa Democrats

I received an email from the GOP yesterday with this short video. Middle-of-the-Road Mort Kondracke referred to it last night on Special Report with Brit Hume and said it was very damaging to the Democrats' credibility on Iraq.

It takes a lot of chutzpa for the Democrats to now claim that the Iraq War was a mistake. Did they think these tapes and their votes had somehow disappeared?

For humorous, paragraph-by-paragraph commentary on some of these speeches, read this by Tom Maguire (Hat Tip: Tigerhawk).

Bucs 36-Redskins 35: A Gutsy Call Beats a Gutless Review

John Gruden had a lot of guts to call for a two-point conversion when he was down by one with less than a minute to play. An easy extra point would have sent the game into overtime. A failed two-point conversion would have given the Bucs a loss. Every columnist in America is writing today about John Gruden’s guts. In the interest of equal time, I would also like to talk about how dumb that call was. What if Alstott didn’t get in? Gruden should be waking up this morning and reading headlines like these in the Tampa Tribune and St. Petersburg Times:

2 Bad Gruden Won’t be Coaching Here Much Longer
2 Much Ego for His Own Good
Tampa’s Terrible Twos

Oh, yeah, I almost forgot. Alstott didn’t get in. Aikman showed that Alstott’s elbow was on the ground well short of the goal line, just as the Redskins had claimed. Troy Aikman doesn’t have a dog in this fight. The former Cowboy hasn’t exactly been pro-Redskin as an announcer. Here is a clip from the Fox broadcast that I found on ExtremeSkins.com:

On the other hand, the Tampa Bay Tribune might have a dog in the fight. Writers for the Tribune might be expected to give the benefit of the doubt to the Bucs. Here is what Roy Cummings of the Tampa Tribune had to say:

“…It may not have been the officials' best effort, either…video replays appeared to back the Redskins' contention that the ball never got over the goal line…”

So, if Gruden showed a lot of guts, Bill Vinovich was absolutely gutless. Who’s he? He is the replay official. He was the guy in Tampa Bay who was charged with taking away from the Tampa Bay Bucs a win that was granted to them by the official on the field. That official on the field didn’t signal that Alstott made it over the goal line until well after Alstott’s elbow hit the ground, so he obviously missed it. Vinovich couldn’t have missed it. Everyone watching Fox saw it hit the ground. Is there any doubt that Vinovich would have overturned the call if it happened earlier in the game? Bill Vinovich is gutless.

Look, I don't want to turn this into a "the officials cost us the game" post. The NFL, though, can very easily and very quickly make officiating much better than it is today. In an era of 50+ inch high definition televisions and high definition cameras everywhere, it's time for the NFL to open up replay reviews.

For example, a more egregious call came on the Bucs first touchdown drive that was set up by a 34-yard pass, on second down and ten, to Galloway at the three yard line. Galloway’s second step after controlling the ball was about a foot out of bounds. All of the officials on the field agreed with that assessment. But, somehow one official—the field judge—made the call that Galloway was pushed out. That was one of the worst calls I have ever seen. The best the Redskins defender could do was dive and chop at the receiver’s hands to try to jar the ball loose. He never got close enough to push him.

When one call can make or break a team in a sixteen-game season, why not scrutinize every call using all of your resources to get it right? The judgment by an official on the field that a receiver was pushed out is not reviewable. Why not?

The Bad: The Redskins have not found a cure for their turnover problems. On the giveaway side, Brunell is a concern, but not because of interceptions. In fact, at least one and possibly both of his picks yesterday were not his fault. He hit David Patten in the hands on that first interception. Patten has to catch that. The second one was a screen in tight coverage, but that ball also hit the receiver’s hands. However, Brunell has fumbled an inordinate amount of the time. It seems he fumbles about half of the time that he gets hit. Given the Redskins woeful record in recovering fumbles this year, that does not bode well.

The other negative that has come up in the past five games is the two or three big plays that the defense is giving up per game. Injuries to some of their best defenders haven’t helped. Their best defensive lineman is Cornelius Griffin and he hasn’t played the last three games beginning with the Giants game. They were already thin at the D-line, so they miss him terribly. They get no push in the middle of their line. And, Sean Taylor did not play yesterday. You have to wonder if he would have delivered one of his famous bone-crushing hits on Alstott and taken the outcome of the game out of the replay booth's control. The Redskins defense, traditionally its strength, has a few things it needs to work on, but the Skins should see significant improvement when Griffin and Taylor come back.

The Good: Once again the Redskins outplayed their opponent in all of the major statistical categories. They earned more first downs, more yards (389, the most against the Bucs this year) and held the ball longer (the Skins dominated time of possession by ten minutes). They did it against the number one defense in the NFL and they did it on the road. It is very hard to move the ball in a loud stadium against an excellent defense. Portis averaged 6.3 yards per rush and he was very consistent. I think the Redskins offense has taken that next step. Scoring 30-points per game is a Gibbs trademark.

As maddening as yesterday’s loss was, the Skins have many more positive things they can take away from it than the Giants can take away from their loss. First of all, the Giants lost to a pitiful team. Second, they lost to a pitiful team at home in a game they were favored to win by ten points. Legitimate first-place teams playing at home don’t lose to pitiful teams. So, the team that is ahead of them now probably won’t be there for long. At least we will be spared all of that nauseating Manning-versus-Manning-in-the-Super-Bowl talk. The Redskins lost an opportunity to catch the Giants yesterday, but the road to the NFC East crown still goes through Philadelphia.

The Redskins Second Half: The Hammer and the Anvil

Unlike other teams in the NFC East, the Redskins have already played the most difficult part of their schedule. Six of the eight teams that they have played are currently over 0.500 and a seventh is at 0.500 thanks to a Skins victory last week. When not playing the Redskins, these eight opponents have a combined record of 36 wins and 20 losses. The Redskins have faced each of their NFC East opponents—including last year’s NFC Champion—when those opponents were over 0.500; they have also faced division leaders Seattle, Chicago, and Denver, and division runner-up Kansas City. And they have five wins. Now, they are about to take the next step. As I predicted here at the beginning of the year, they will clinch a playoff spot this year.

The Redskins have four things going for them in the second half. First, LaVar Arrington will start and get significant playing time in the next eight games. They missed him. Second, they have reached the soft spot in their schedule. Over their next five games they play the Bucs, Raiders, Chargers, Rams, and Cardinals. The Redskins will exploit the soft spot the way the Giants took advantage of their soft spot. Four of the Giants six wins came against the Cardinals, Saints, Rams, and 49ers. Third, by the law of averages, they should see significant improvement in turnover differential in the second half. I detail that in this post, which includes a review of the first eight games. Finally, Joe Gibbs knows how to win when it counts. He wins in December and January. He wins when he knows he has an advantage like a soft spot in the schedule. When a Gibbs team faces a mediocre team, you will not hear the Turneresque: “Golly we tried, but we just couldn’t get those last [insert number less than four] points.”

The Soft Spot
I think four of the five games in this soft spot will be decided by less than a touchdown, but good teams win the close ones and the Redskins are better than these five. Three weeks ago I would have said that the Bucs would win a close one in Tampa, but with Griese out, the Redskins should win. Don’t get me wrong, Tampa still has an excellent defense, so the game should be close. And, how badly would Simms Jr. like to sit down at Thanksgiving dinner with daddy and tell him how he beat Gibbs, which his daddy didn’t do too often. Unfortunately for junior, it won’t be this Thanksgiving. (Correction 11/15: A loyal reader has pointed out that although Gibbs-coached teams spanked the Giants from 1981 through 1985 and Phil Simms was the starting QB in 1981, Phil sat the bench in 1982 and 1983 and therefore did not bear the brunt of the beatings. Although Simms's game-by-game record is difficult to find, Phil probably wound up with about a dozen wins against Joe Gibbs in his career. On a lighter note: A Google search of--"Phil Simms", NFL--with quotations only around Phil Simms returns this. It looks like there will be a lot to talk about at the Simms house this Thanksgiving.)

Then, they play Oakland in DC, which should be a win. Gibbs will teach Turner how to win a close game, and Turner will have that bitter-beer look on his face at the end when he takes off the headset.

Next comes San Diego in DC. This will be a tough one. Marty Schottenheimer probably feels he was not treated right by Dan Snyder and he will probably have his team geared up for this one. For the Skins to win, the rabid fans will have to do their part. Man, have the fans been loud this year; keep it up.

Then, they play St. Louis, which because it’s on the road could be a close one, but it’s very winnable.

The last game in the soft spot is against Arizona in Arizona. Look, I think there is a very small difference between the best and worst in the NFL, and if Turner or Spurrier were coaching I wouldn’t be so confident in this one, but this will be a win.

The negative thing about this soft spot is that three of the five games are on the road, but at least the toughest game is at home.

So, the Redskins have a legitimate chance to get four wins in their next five games before they face their three NFC East opponents in the last three games of the regular season. They could be 9 – 4 when they take on the NFC East. Two of those three games are at home where they are undefeated.

Joe Knows Football
Now, comes the best part. Joe Gibbs knows how to win, but he is a genius at winning at the end of the year. Joe Gibbs has an amazing record in games played in December and January. After going 3 – 2 last year with a lesser team, Joe has a record of 31 wins and 10 losses in December. And, of course, Joe’s teams are 16 – 5 in the playoffs. So, in December and January, Gibbs has a record of 47 wins and 15 losses. If a 9-4 record going into the three-game NFC East showdown is the hammer, then Gibbs's late-season record is the anvil that they will use to pound the NFC East.

Conclusion
The Skins have won five games with bad luck, against the tough part of their schedule, and without their best player on defense—LaVar Arrington. How many wins can they get with LaVar against the easy part of their schedule, when their luck is likely to change? If they enter those last three games against NFC East teams at 9-4, they will not only make the playoffs, they will finish with eleven wins and the NFC East title. Given that the Redskins already have wins over NFC division-leaders Chicago and Seattle, the Redskins could end up with a bye in the first round of the playoffs and at least one home playoff game.

Must Read Blog Post from Tigerhawk

Tigerhawk has posted a great piece he called "Considering dissent and limited war II."

Please read it. In fact, Tigerhawk should be bookmarked by every Blog reader. Whenever I figure out how to put up a blogroll, Tigerhawk will be my first addition.

A Review of the Redskins First Half: What’s Luck Got to do with It?

The Redskins have played exactly half of their games and with five wins and three losses they are firmly in control for a playoff spot, which I predicted here. Barring a major injury, they should win the NFC East, but at the very least they will win a wild card spot.

The Redskins have done many things extremely well and several players have exceeded many fans’ expectations. Skins fans would have taken the following in a heart beat: Mark Brunell has a 90.3 passer rating with 12 TDs and only 3 picks and is playing like he did in his prime in Jacksonville; Portis and Betts have combined for over 800 yards and a 4.2 rushing average; Santana Moss is on his way to a 1700-yard, 10-TD season; and, despite several injuries to key guys on the defensive line (especially Griffin), the Redskins are seventh in the NFL in defense.

They also would have taken five wins with LaVar Arrington on the bench. Arrington just got healthy enough to get his first start and significant playing time in the eighth game. And, other than Santana Moss, nobody is having a career year, but most experts expected Moss, a first-round draft pick, to put up the kind of numbers that he is now. It is auspicious that the Skins are playing this well with only one player having a career year. Another thing that bodes well is the likely reversal of their poor luck in one area.

Luck in the NFL
There are three things that can seriously impact an NFL team that can be attributed to luck; injuries to specific players, incorrect calls from the officials, and fumble recoveries. Just about everything else depends on the skills of the people employed by the team. The wind blew the winning field goal into the upright? Well, the kicker should have accounted for it. The runner was about to score the winning touchdown before the safety jarred the ball loose? That is an athletic play by the safety, not bad luck. But, for all the preparation that an NFL team does, it cannot really prepare for injuries, bad calls, and fumble recoveries.

Obviously, the impact of an injury to a specific player can be minimized by developing a staff that can find good, inexpensive players who provide depth, but injuries to specific players is almost completely about luck.

There is little a team can do to prepare for bad calls and this needs little explanation. When bad calls happen in close games, it can make the difference between a win and a loss. With only sixteen games played in a regular season, one bad call can make or break a season.

Finally, some people might argue that because a fumble happens on the field, athleticism makes a difference in who recovers it. I don’t buy it. There is not a huge difference in size, speed, or athleticism between any two groups of eleven players on a field and the oval ball bounces randomly, so when a player puts it on the ground a team should have roughly a 50% chance of recovering it. The statistics bear this out, too—this year NFL offenses recover their own fumbles 50.8% of the time and defenses recover the other team’s fumble 49.2% of the time. So, there should be few arguments on this point. Any significant deviation away from a 50% recovery rate is either bad luck or good luck.

Remember, I am talking about picking up a ball that is already on the ground, not stripping a ball from a player’s hands. There are some defenders that do an excellent job of stripping the ball, and that takes athleticism and skill. You should expect good teams to strip the ball more often than bad ones. But once that ball is on the ground it’s 50/50.

The Importance of Turnovers
In two of the Redskins losses they outplayed their opponent in the important statistical categories of total yards gained and time of possession. So, the Redskins have played well enough to have won seven games. They have only five wins because they have been inefficient in converting all of those yards and long drives into points. The Redskins are inefficient because they have only won the turnover battle in one game—just one. And, more importantly, they have lost the turnover battle mainly because they are not getting enough takeaways. Getting turnovers shortens the field for the offense, which improves a team’s efficiency.

The only game in which the Redskins won the turnover battle was the 49ers game; the score in that game was 52 to 7 half way through the fourth quarter. That is the type of football this team is capable of playing when it wins the turnover battle. The Skins are next to last in the NFL with a -9 turnover ratio—only the Saints are worse.

Only three teams with a winning record have a negative turnover differential—Tampa Bay, San Diego, and the Redskins—but the Skins are far worse than the other two, giving up the ball a net 1.13 times per game compared with a net 0.33 for San Diego and 0.125 for Tampa. The combined record of the seventeen teams with a negative turnover differential is 46 wins and 85 losses.

If the Redskins had been playing average football with this turnover differential they would have needed luck to get three wins. If you did not believe your eyes watching them play this year, this statistic proves that they have played far better than average football in the first half—far better. Imagine what they could do if they win the turnover battle.

It’s the Fumble Recoveries, Stupid
As I said, the main reason the Redskins are losing the turnover battle is a lack of takeaways. With only six takeaways, they are next to last in getting the ball—only the Texans have taken the ball away fewer times. The Redskins fifteen giveaways are right in the middle of the pack (thirteen teams have given it away more, two are tied, and sixteen gave it away less). The Redskins have been average in interceptions—they have gotten four and thrown four—but they have been horrible on fumbles.

Now, comes the interesting part. In their eight games, the football has been fumbled—either by the Redskins or their opponents—a total of 31 times. I’ll repeat that: Either the Redskins or their opponents put the ball on the ground a total of 31 times in the eight Redskins games this year. Of the 31 fumbles, take a guess how many the Redskins recovered. Remember, each team has a 50% chance of getting a recovery. So, did you guess that the Redskins recovered about fifteen or sixteen fumbles?

The Redskins have only recovered six fumbles—only SIX. This finding blew me away. Their opponents recovered 25 fumbles to the Redskins 6. The Redskins recover 19.4% of the fumbles in their games, which is by far the worst percentage in the NFL. The next-worst team is the Saints and they recover 33.3% of the fumbles in their games, so it’s not even close.

Now, the Saints are pretty bad, so you might look at them and think maybe recovering fumbles does have something to do with athleticism and skill. But, if you are thinking that you are wrong because after the Saints, the undefeated Colts are the next worst team with a 34.6% recovery rate. In fact the worst five teams in this area—Washington New Orleans, Indianapolis, Seattle, and Kansas City—have a combined record of 26 wins and 15 losses.

How Do the Redskins Fix a Negative Turnover Differential?
I think there is less to fix than meets the eye. Sure, they could do a better job getting interceptions. They have not gotten a lot of pressure on the quarterback, which is giving receivers time to get separation and quarterbacks lanes to deliver accurate passes, and that has reduced the number of picks. However, this is an area where the Redskins should see some improvement in the second half. Arrington is back. Arrington is a leader and a great athlete, but mostly he’s a quarterback killer. The Redskins will get more pressure on the quarterback and interceptions with Arrington playing, so they simply need to recover more fumbles. And that, as I’ve said, is simply luck.

Given the variance in recoveries among the 32 NFL teams, a simple statistical test shows that any fumble recovery rate less than 35.75% or greater than 64.25% can be attributed to bad or good luck, respectively (80% confidence interval for stats buffs). Recovery rates between these two extremes are close enough to 50% to be considered 50% by statistical analysis.

If there is regression toward the mean in the second half, the Redskins should see a significant improvement in their fumble-recovery rate, which should lead to the NFC East title. And, which team was the luckiest in the first half? The Giants—they had a 69.2% fumble recovery rate, which is a rate that is so high it’s safe to say that the Giants have been lucky. The Giants are due for a fall.

Did SUV-Driving, Environment-Raping Capitalists Roam the Earth 55 Million Years Ago?

Beans Marched North Eons Ago, During Warming

Friday, November 11, 2005
Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- An increase in the planet's temperature 55 million years ago prompted major shifts in plant distribution, researchers reported yesterday...

...Their findings are reported in today's issue of the journal Science.

The group studied a period called the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when the planet warmed up over about 10,000 years, raising the average temperature by between 9 degrees and 18 degrees Fahrenheit. The warmth lasted for 80,000 to 120,000 years...

© 2005 The Star Ledger

So, global temperatures increased between 9 and 18 degrees Fahrenheit 55 million years ago, but we should be forced to limit population growth and pay multiples more for alternative energy sources because:

on a global average, land-surface air and sea surface temperature rose by between 0.3°C (0.54 F) and 0.6°C (1.08 F) between the late 19th century and 1994

Over the last 150 years, the planet has warmed between 1/36th and 1/9th the amount that it warmed 54.99999 million years before SUVs. We probably have about 5,000 years to research this.

Relax, Skins Fans, the Giants Game was a Fluke

It’s official. Last week’s Redskins’ game against the Giants was a fluke; an aberration; an anomaly. Last week’s performance is unlikely to be repeated by either team. Yesterday, the Redskins bounced back in spades and the Giants came back to earth. The Redskins won a game against the “team to beat,” a game they circled on their calendar months ago, and the Giants were unimpressive against the league’s worst team, who started a rodeo cowboy at quarterback.

The Redskins defense did a great job taking apart the Eagles offense yesterday. And, on offense, when the Redskins main receiving threats (Moss and Patten) were double covered and their main rushing threat (Portis) was stopped, Brunell was able to effectively use his third, fourth and fifth option. And, Brunell is back on track given his masterful performance last night, completing 72% of his passes.

Okay, Counter Trey, but what about that horrible performance last week, you ask? Well, good teams have bad games. Good teams also have great games. Last week’s contest was a game between two good teams who, on that day, were on opposite sides of that spectrum. The Giants are a good team that played a great game with emotion and were facing the Redskins who had an emotional let down after demolishing the 49ers the week before. The Giants were riding a “win-one-for-the-Gipper” high at the same time that the Redskins came in flat. Tiki Barber—who, along with the Giants defense, was chiefly responsible for the win thanks to his 200+ rushing yards—made several comments in which he actually said he felt possessed; he had to win the game for Mara. And, defenses are fueled almost completely by emotion.

That passion acted as a lever on the Giants’ superior tactical knowledge that day. The leaders of last year’s Redskins’ offense (Hasselback) and defense (Pierce) were calling out the Redskins’ plays even as they were lining up to run them. Taken together, the outcome seems almost predestined.

What convinces me that last week was a fluke? Why shouldn’t Redskins fans expect a repeat on Christmas Eve when the Giants go to Washington? Everyone—and I mean EVERYONE—coming in to the season thought that the Eagles were the team to beat in the NFC. The Eagles have been to the NFC Championship game four years in a row. If the NFC Championship game was Trump Plaza, the Eagles are Donald Trump. The Eagles are still the best team in the NFC until proven otherwise. The Redskins hadn’t beaten the Eagles in years and the Redskins and Eagles both considered last night a must-win game. And the Redskins won. The Redskins beat the “team-to-beat.”

But wait, there’s more. There are some teams that are so bad that you are surprised when they don’t lose by at least 21 points. The 49ers are that bad. Two weeks ago, the Redskins beat the 49ers by 35 points—45 points really if you take away a garbage-time field goal (That’s right, the Niners actually kicked a field goal when they were losing by a score of 52 to 7) and touch down on the 49ers last play of the game. If the Giants are truly 36 points better than the Redskins, they should have set a modern-day record in Monster Park yesterday, especially because they were facing the Niners fourth-string quarterback, who is best known for his rodeo skills. They should have beaten the Niners by 70-something points. Okay, nobody scores 70 anymore, so 60…

…Alright, let’s be realistic 40…

…Never mind, 30...

Is it too much to ask that a team that is supposed to lose every game by a minimum of 21 points loses by more than 21 when they face a juggernaut like the Giants?

Well, the Giants won, by a not very impressive 18 points. Don’t get the wrong idea, Giants fans, I know a win is a win is a win and I said the Giants are a good team. The point of this is to establish that they are not 36 points better than the Redskins. That will become clear over the next eight games. Last week was a fluke.

More on the Giants: Although Mike Francesca and Chris Russo (AKA Mike and the Mad Dog) of WFAN radio in New York now say the Giants will win the NFC East (and they actually believe that the Eagles are dead), the Giants have a lot to prove. For one thing, if you are going to win your division, you have to beat the teams in it. Right now the Giants have one much-discussed win in the division and one loss to the Cowboys. Half of the Giants remaining division games are on the road including the one to the Redskins. Last year the Giants were 2 - 0 against the Cowboys, 1 – 1 against the Redskins and 0 – 2 against the Eagles. The Giants have not played the Eagles yet this year and, so have no idea how they will match up against the NFC Champion. It might be a little early to pass the crown.

Besides the Redskins, have the Giants beaten any good teams? You be the judge. Their other five wins came against the Cardinals, Saints, Rams, Broncos, and Niners. The Broncos are very good and almost unbeatable in Denver, but the Giants played them in New Jersey and pulled off a last-second miracle. Take away their loss to the Giants and those five teams have a combined 16 – 20 record and that includes Denver’s six wins and one loss, otherwise it would be 10 - 19. And the Giants two losses? They came against legitimate playoff-caliber teams—the Chargers and Cowboys.

More on the NFC East: In addition to declaring the Eagles dead and picking the Giants to win the division, Mike and the Mad Dog picked the Cowboys to get a wildcard spot. The only NFC East teams with winning records in their division are the Cowboys and Redskins, and the Redskins are 1-0 against the Cowboys, after beating them in Dallas. The Redskins have now beaten the team that is the “team-to-beat” in the entire NFC— not just the NFC East—and play two of their last three NFC East games at home where they are undefeated. The Redskins will probably be favored in at least six of their remaining eight games. Add it all up and the Redskins are in the driver’s seat for the division title. Sorry Mike and Mad Dog.

UPDATE (11/8):Whew. Nothing like a Giants fan scorned.

Three of you anonymous Giants fans posted replies that made me think you actually read the post above. This comment is for the rest of you.

First, nowhere in this post did I say the Redskins were better than the Giants. The Redskins have to prove that on the field on Christmas Eve.

Second, as Joe Gibbs said before the Sunday night game, (paraphrased) "you are nobody until you beat the champ." The Eagles are the champs despite what Mike and the Mad Dog think. The Giants have to prove they can beat the Eagles. TO or no TO, the eagles are not going away. They are still one of the top (if not still THE top) teams in the NFC; I hate that fact as much as you do.

Third, the comments that I got without invective made some good points. The Giants could very well have been flat against the Niners, especially after being so high against the Skins, and I did not recognize that in the original post. But the point I am making in this post is that the Skins aren't as bad as they looked in the Giants game, NOT that the Giants are a bad team; In fact, if you read closely I say at least three times that I think the Giants are a good team.

Fourth, I never said the crown was going to be passed to the Redskins. I said the games in the division are going to make the difference and the Redskins are in better shape than the others because of their divisional record, who they have beaten already, plus they have more home games remaining against division opponents.

Last, the post was addressed to Skins fans who were as nervous as I was after seeing how poorly the Skins played against the Giants. I am surprised that it could have pissed off Giants fans. If the Skins had beaten the Giants 36-0 I probably would have dismissed the Giants as a threat to the Skins this year. I would have thought Giants fans would have dismissed the Skins and already be looking ahead to the Eagles.

Redskins/Eagles Preview

Boy, am I glad I didn't make a prediction about the Giants game. I don't remember ever seeing the Redskins play that poorly--not even when they were a bad team. I had planned on writing a preview of the game, but I ran out of time. I was planning to write that NFC East games are always tough no matter who is playing. No matter how much better one NFC East team is relative to another NFC East team, the games always seem to be hard-fought battles. But, I was also going to say the Redskins are better than the Giants, and I still think that is true. Before I move on to Sunday’s game against the Eagles, I will give a postmortem on the 36-to-Nada (ZERO, Doughnut, etc.) game.

Three things killed the Redskins in that game: Wellington Mara, Antonio Pierce, and Tim Hasselback. That’s right, I said Tim Hasselback. Although Pierce played well, it’s what he provided off the field that counted and the same is true of Mara and Hasselback. Pierce and Hasselback were calling out every play the Redskins ran and Mara’s death provided the emotion. (I read some research somewhere about how people are generally good a timing their deaths for tax purposes. If that's possible and you were Mara, would you want your death to inspire the team for the Redskins game with the division lead at stake, or for the 49ers game? When you add in the extra home game, you have to say lady luck is shining on the Giants this year.)

Last year Pierce and Hasselback were the quarterbacks of the Redskins defense and offense, respectively. They knew exactly what the Redskins were doing on almost every play on Sunday. That is an advantage that cannot be discounted. Prior to the game, I didn’t believe that it would make that much of a difference, but the main contributors on the Giants (e.g. Tiki Barber, Shockey, et al) all said it did. Next time, the Redskins will be ready for it and the emotion of Mara’s death will have subsided. And, the next time they play in Washington.

On to the Eagles. What should Redskins fans expect from their team this week? I think the team was embarrassed last week. I think that the coaching staff was embarrassed. You can say the Eagles were embarrassed last week too, but at least they scored some points. The Redskins have something to prove, and not just because the Eagles have been division champs for the past four years. The Redskins need to prove to themselves that last week was a fluke.

This coaching staff will get it done. I think a small part of the problem last week was that the team was looking ahead to this week. I think the Redskins had Sunday, November 6 circled on their calendar for a long time. I expect the Eagles to get a heavy dose of this:

A View of the World from Hollywood and Vine: Boston Legal's Iraq War Episode

The New Yorker ran a cover on March 29, 1976 with a cartoon by Saul Steinberg called “A View of the World from Ninth Avenue.” The Cartoon depicted a view from Manhattan to the west where midtown was large and detailed, but not because of realism or perspective. Rather, the depiction of New York was a statement of the typical New Yorker’s bias, where the rest of the world was flat, small, and non-descript. Last evening’s Boston Legal gave us “A View of the World from Hollywood and Vine.”

Boston Legal screen writers betrayed either their bias or their complete ignorance of conservatism and conservatives based on the lines they had Denny Crane utter last night. Denny Crane, played by William Shatner, is the show’s only conservative character on the show although Mark Valley’s undeveloped character—Brad Chase—might eventually develop into a conservative. The writers’ made a pathetic attempt to explain conservatives’ position on the war in Iraq when Alan Shore, an eloquent liberal (of course, is there any other kind?) played by James Spader, sued the military for a client who lost a brother in Iraq.

Denny Crane angrily tells Shore that the difference between Democrats and Republicans is that “Republicans stick with their convictions (over the war) even when we know we are dead wrong.” Later, Denny Crane tells Shore that he is either “for us or against us.” Even Brad, who says he was in the military—and Mark Valley did graduate from West Point—offers little more than anger over what Shore was doing because “he was in the military.” Huh?

And that’s it. That's the sum of the writers’ understanding of conservatives and their position in the war against terror. There was no nuance; no discussion of any intelligent reason for prosecuting a war, especially a war against Islamo-fascists who attack innocent civilians; no eloquence. This is the view from Hollywood and Vine. This is the best the writers—Lawrence Broch, Andrew Kreisberg, and Michael Reisz—could do, while Alan Shore and several other characters waxed poetically without challenge using every trite line that lefties have voiced since Baghdad fell.

So, a question that I’d like addressed is: Do the writers script these lines because they are biased and want to influence the outcome of the debate, or do they write this way because they do not understand the argument. I am slowly coming to the belief that it’s the latter—they are ignorant. And, the saddest thing is that these writers are today’s intellectuals who are shaping the debate for a large swath of people who get their news from comedies (and I don’t mean CBS News).

Hollywood desperately needs some new talent.

Senator Patrick Leahy's "Unofficial" Offer

Senator Leahy, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, gave a speech on the Senate floor yesterday on the nomination of Sam Alito for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. The Senator's official web site included the following sentence as part of his speech:

But this nomination does not add to the diversity of the Supreme Court or make it more reflective of America.

What he actually said was:

This nomination does not add to the diversity of the Supreme Court any more than I add to the diversity of the Senate.

The President should take this opportunity to "reach across the aisle." The President should attempt to "be a uniter, not a divider" by making a deal with Senator Leahy. The President could offer to withdraw Alito from consideration and replace him with an African-American woman--Janice Rogers Brown--if Leahy resigns. Vermont's Republican Governor, Jim Douglas, would name Senator Leahy's replacement.