Saturday, January 14, 2006
Redskins off to war
Countertrey puts a coming battle into context:
A thorough point by point analysis of the Redskins/Seahawks game follows, making a pretty strong case that, as with Desert Storm, the conventional wisdom on this game may be very wrong. Read the whole thing!
In August of 1990, during the buildup to Operation Desert Storm under Bush 41, the New York Times ran a front-page article in a Sunday edition describing the power of the Iraqi military. The gist of the piece was that the Iraqis had a superb military, especially its elite Republican Guard; it was the fifth most-powerful military in the world. The Times warned that President Bush was underestimating his enemy and that victory would not come easily, especially in an unfamiliar environment like the desert. And the Times warned that, unlike the US, the Iraqi military was recently battle tested in its war with Iran. The Times was stating what every major main stream publication was stating at the time.
What does this have to do with this weekend’s playoff game? Well, every main stream publication is saying that the Seahawks are a superb team that is battle tested and they cannot be beaten by another NFC team in the unfamiliar territory of Seattle.
Here are the facts: Like the Iraqis who battled a pushover military like Iran’s, the Seahawks played the easiest schedule in the NFL this year. Their opponents’ average winning percentage was only 0.421, which was 32nd out of 32 NFL teams, but averages only tell part of the story. When the Seahawks played good teams they were very average. When they played bad ones, they were the US Marines stomping on the Republican Guard.
A thorough point by point analysis of the Redskins/Seahawks game follows, making a pretty strong case that, as with Desert Storm, the conventional wisdom on this game may be very wrong. Read the whole thing!
0 Comments:
