Yay Optimism

I find myself wanting to keep the current system entirely intact - Zorn seems to have built a real team out of a motley crew of veterans, draft picks, and free agents. That has to be worth something. And, for all the talk of his emasculation, how is is role different from Andy Reid's? Andy Reid is an offensive coach who lets the defense do its own thing and has somebody else call the plays. No one outside of Philly is ever calling for his head.

In post-game pressers after the game, I always got the impression that Zorn was so preoccupied with play-calling that he had been unable to actually watch the game - he was always hesitant to speak to anything specific, especially on defense. The past few weeks, though, he's had his head in the game, and, though he's made some calls I've hated (kicking the field goal on third down in Dallas, icing Suisham with the 2 minute warning last week), his game management has improved, and half time adjustments are light-years ahead of where they were.

As I argue his case, I find myself more and more in Zorn's camp. Besides, what did Shanahan ever do without Elway? Why do people think of him as the second coming of Christ? Would we expect a Shanahan offense to put up more than 30 against the Gregg Williams coached Saints? Or to get more production out of second year receivers and castoffs at running back and O-line? Zorn hasn't always been perfect, but it's hard to imagine Shanahan, Cowher, Gibbs, or Belicheck doing any better on offense over the past couple games.

If the team falls apart over the next few, then all bets are off, but, if they can actually hold this thing together and finish strong against playoff-caliber teams, I say keep the team together and draft for need: O-line, O-line, O-line, and maybe RB or FS. And let's keep the playcalling parallelogram intact as well.

Comment on 7-6 Loss to Dallas

I know there are a lot of columnists out there who want to say that everything happens for a reason, and there really is someone to blame for every loss. Sometimes, though, teams just lose. They get injured, they get bad calls, they drop balls, they miss field goals, and they lose. It's not because they don't have enough talent, or because they're not well coached, or because their GM is legally retarded, but because things just broke the wrong way. I think that's what you're trying to say here, Boswell, and I think you're right. Sure, there were lots of obvious reasons for the losses to Kansas City and Detroit, and talent, coaching, and personnel were all to blame. But this game... we should have won. We did everything right, or at least well enough, that, 9 times out of 10, we would have won that game. Boswell's right, this was a true heartbreak.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/22/AR2009112202186.html?hpid=topnews

Bad News

Listening to the radio this morning was incredibly depressing. Republicans swept the positions of Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Attorney General in Virginia. With the Republican majority in the state legislature, this can only mean that we're headed on a disastrous path. No more will schools be a priority. No more will there be major investments in infrastructure. McDonnell wants to promote "free enterprise" to create jobs, but it has been shown time and time again that this doesn't work, at least not in a state that doesn't have an extremely expensive tax code. Virginia's economy has been doing very well despite the recession, and it seems like the voters have thrown out the state party due to national issues.

Another bit of bad news was that Maine rejected a homosexual marriage proposal. The blurb they played was some dude saying how happy he was that they were able to protect marriage. This is the most idiotic argument I can imagine. How does the institution of marriage benefit from being forced into a political role through which people can express prejudice and hatred? When Katie and I got married I was extremely happy, but it was a sobering thought to realize that there are people out there who aren't allowed to experience that same joy. Not because they don't love each other, not because they're not devoted, not because they're not faithful or committed or adoring, but because other people whom they've never met hate them. Any other way of stating the gay marriage issue is disingenuous. Gays are not allowed to marry because supposed "Christians" hate them. This is so obvious to me that I don't understand why it is viewed as partisan. This issue of hate seems as obvious as the fact that the Earth orbits the Sun, yet it can't be presented as news.

This brings me to the underlying issue which has me really upset and scared. Republicans can win an election in which there is absolutely no rational reason to vote for them. People from Maine and even California can cast their votes for hate (literally). Some say that we should give credit where credit is due, and admit that the Republican/evangelical machine is just very good at getting its message out and obfuscating reality. I think this is a cop out. Let Republicans and evangelicals be as misleading or persuasive as they want to be. In an odd sort of way, they deserve to be that persuasive, because they are handicapped by reality. They are at a constant disadvantage because the issues they defend are based on ideas that make no sense and have been proven wrong. Democrats and liberals, on the other hand, support progressive ideas that work. Democrats embrace reason and rationality as a way to make our country better (as opposed to Republicans who are scared of change and uncertainty). I think the ultimate issue is that Democrats recognize that they're right, and thus they don't do enough to defend their goals or ideas. Perhaps they feel like it would be stating the obvious. Whatever the reason, the result is that Republicans own the news cycle, and many ideas which are irrational to the extreme (defense of marriage, trickle down economics, death penalty, infrastructure neglect) exist as reasonable alternatives in the popular mindset. Republicans are much more effective at defending their positions because they have to be - their positions don't make any sense (unless you're a rich short sighted bigot), while Democrats rely far too much on the idea that people are capable of seeing the deeper issues without any assistance from them. It is here that Democrats' reverence for intellect bites them in the ass - it's as though they don't want to insult the minds of the populace with arguments that they should already understand. Until Democrats get the message that they actually have to explain their platform and why it works (as well as the Republican platform and why it doesn't work), they will continue to lose elections they have no reason to lose. This was the one thing that Obama was incredibly effective at - he refreshingly restated the Democratic platform, and enlightened people why it's good for the economy, good for the military, good for the pocketbook, and good for our livelihood. Whatever else you can say about Creigh Deeds, he sure sucked at getting his message out.

Redskins beat Bucs, 16-13

Positive thoughts from yesterday's game:

Between Horton and Doughty, we have two safeties that can tackle. Landry needs to stop believing the hype and worry more about wrapping up than ending careers. I don't think he'll ever be Arrington or Taylor, but that doesn't mean he can't be Horton or Doughty...

With DeAngelo Hall, we have one corner who can catch. Plus, Tryon looked great chasing down Josh Johnson.

London Fletcher seems to play all three LB positions at once. With someone like him back there, surely we can spare Orakpo to rush the passer going forward.

Jeremy Jarmon seems to be nothing but awesome whenever he's in the game. I'd love to see the following defensive line-up on third down situations:

Horton, Doughty, and Landry in Cobra
Rogers, Hall, and Tryon
Fletcher and Orakpo
Jarmon, Haynesworth, Daniels, and Carter

With Orakpo to blitz or QB spy. We need as much speed as possible in the defensive backfield, and we have to rely on Fletcher or one of the three safeties to play the draw.

Offensively, we got one quarter. Out of 16 quarters of football this year, we so far have one quarter where this team has actually played like we (naively) expected it to. That may sound depressing, but I actually feel like it's a glimmer of hope. So far this year, I imagine JZ and co. have been showing the players a lot of "if only" in the film room; if only this block had held up, if only Campbell had made this read, if only Kelly had run the right route, if only Portis had cut back... At least now we should have one quarter where the offense can watch itself do something right.

Also, as bad as the first series was for Chad and Stephon, the team seemed to run really well to the right side. It was the run to the right where Portis tripped at the LOS, but could have broken a huge one. I don't know if it's because the Bucs didn't gameplan for us running to the right (it is outlandish) or because the young lineman on the right are gutting it out, but that seems like a really positive sign.

Redskins lose to Giants, 23 - 17

Ugh. I blame this one entirely on Zorn. Campbell's two go-to themes all preseason were taking shots downfield and finding a rhythm. Above poster was correct - Campbell didn't even get a chance to play until the end of the first half. The Redskins were apparently so eager to have anyone other than Campbell throw the ball that the first pass play of the season goes to... Randle El.

Zorn really squandered two huge moments of the game by showing a lack of confidence in his quarterback. The first came on the second play, when Portis had just gashed the Giants for a huge gain. The Skins had the opportunity to define their game, to play "Redskins football." Instead, they ran the reverse pass, a desperate call for a non-desperate situation. A play like that has to be set up all day, after watching how the defense reacts to various formations and routes. Why not just have Campbell lead the team down the field? Why does Zorn have to learn the same lesson from Week 1 2008 all over again.

The other huge moment was after D. Hall's interception. The Skins had it at the 11 yard line, and Malcolm Kelly was alone split wide in single coverage. I told my wife that it was going to be a fade to the corner of the endzone, and the Redskins would score. That didn't happen, although the opportunity was there. Instead we got a boatload of Portis and a bit of WR screen trickery that, again, hadn't been set up.

Zorn's biggest problem last year was the inability to use his weapons. We were told that was because the high draft picks weren't ready to play, and maybe that was true. This year, though, we've seen the young skill players do awesome things in the preseason, so we know they can run routes and catch the ball. Let them do it!

Defensively, I place the blame on Blache. Now, to be fair, the defense only gave up 16 points, and gave the offense at least one great opportunity in Giants' territory. Still, they couldn't get off the field. Zorn and the offense didn't have a chance to establish any kind of game plan because, whenever the Giants had the ball, the defense couldn't get it back. Goal line stands are great and all, but you shouldn't need to have four per game. This, even more than the missed tackles on the touchdown, is what really bothers me, because it's a carry over from the end of last season. Early on, the Giants ran at will off tackle, something the Ravens and other teams were able to do last year. The defense still couldn't get close enough to pressure Manning on a consistent basis, again a recurrent theme despite big acquisitions. As the personnel seems to more and more meet the needs of a pass rushing team, this defense still can't get to the QB. At some point, you have to look at the coordinator. Still, the interception did come from a rushed pass, which is the story we've been fed all season.

All in all, I still think this is a good team. The roster is easily playoff caliber. I think the defense is moving (slowly) in the right direction, and there's no reason other than playcalling that the offense shouldn't succeed. We'll see if Zorn is less intimidated next week against the lowly Rams...

Obama's Health Care Speech Comments

It is truly sad to see so many people here so eager to make themselves look stupid. Kudos to hunter340 for actually talking about facts. I don't agree with his conclusions, but at least he cited something concrete. These types of message boards need moderators - if you're not saying anything someone else hasn't said, then don't say anything. It's annoying to have to sift through your inane idiocy to try to get to actual thought-out opinions.

As for the illegal aliens, I'm already paying a thousand dollars a year for them (and so are you, as Obama pointed out). Any decrease in that number is a good thing for me. Sure I'd like to pay nothing for them, but I don't really want them dying from illness and having to be disposed of, either. Any immigration enforcement has to be accompanied with a plan for how to deal with the millions of people already here. I'm all for making it tougher on them, but I don't think they should be left to rot in the streets. Also, health is a communal thing. Do you want to prevent illegal immigrants from being treated for swine flu or any other contagious disease? A healthy population means less expensive health care. Less expensive health care means a more robust economy. A more robust economy means a lower deficit. A lower deficit means it's easier to protect our interests around the world, as well as to improve the standard of living for our citizens.

Also, it's very tiring to hear Obama and the democrats characterized as far left radicals. A far left radical would take everything you own and give you everything you need (or they think you need). If you think that's what this plan is, you're far off base. For one, health care isn't even a material possession. It is a service much like the interstate highway system; its existence makes it easier for people to live their lives without constraint and contribute to the economy. If we all drove on toll roads that were poorly maintained and expensive, and Obama tried to suggest that the government handle it instead so that you could focus on contributing to the economy, you would all decry him as a socialist or communist or whatever other word you think scares people. Barack Obama is to the right of moderate. He wants you to go out and spend money, to start businesses, to have dreams and participate in the economy. He is much more of a capitalist than a socialist, so please stop touting your ignorance and think before you type.

Ultimately, I think the problem that republicans have with the plan is that it's being framed in a way that appeals to democrats. Republicans - think of it this way: if John Doe doesn't have to worry about his health care or getting sick, he can devote more of his intelligence and intrinsic value to his career and his family, which is a boost to a capitalist society. John Doe can change professions freely, allowing cutting edge markets to attract more mature talent, which will propel capitalist society forward. Going back to my road analogy, in a communist society we'd all be expected to pitch in and maintain our own section of the road. Sure you don't spend as much time working a job, the communists would say, but at you get such a wholesome feeling out of contributing to the well being of your nation. By taking health care into government hands, or, at the very least, government regulation and security, capitalism is the biggest winner.

Think about that instead of your asinine comments.