Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

13 Aug 2005

Limbaugh Offers To Settle Owens Situation

Here's my nominee for the worst idea ever. (I hesitate to even link to this story, but it's just too weird not to). Rush Limbaugh's last foray into sports broadcasting resulted in his prompt firing from ESPN after making some questionable comments about Donovan McNabb. Now he wants to use his radio show to get T.O. and McNabb to settle their differences. Here's my question: why stop with Limbaugh? Why not just book them on Springer and Jeff Garcia can be the surprise guest who whips off his wig and sunglasses as he storms the stage to go after T.O?

Posted by: P. Ryan Wilson on 13 Aug 2005

63 comments, Last at 17 Aug 2005, 1:58am by Melish


by Krugerindustrialsmoothing (not verified) :: Sat, 08/13/2005 - 2:54pm

like driving by a particularly gruesome car wreck, I cringe, yet cannot turn away.

by Optical (not verified) :: Sat, 08/13/2005 - 3:36pm

At the risk of being attacked for "defending" Limbaugh, I would like to point out that Limbaugh's comments were not directed towards McNabb but instead towards the media. Personally, I do think that most people in the media like McNabb as a person and as a player, although not to Peter King - Brett Favre levels of man-love. Now, whether or not any of the media's positive thoughts of McNabb are caused at least in part by racial considerations, I have no real opinion on that. Obviously Limbaugh does. In any event, I think it's at least a discussion that we might be able to have seriously if Limbaugh were not the one making the original comment.

by MLK (not verified) :: Sat, 08/13/2005 - 3:47pm

Maybe people would have cut Limbaugh a little slack if he hadn't told the African-American caller to take the bone out of his nose.

by Optical (not verified) :: Sat, 08/13/2005 - 3:56pm

Here's McNabb's DPAR and DVOA rankings as made available by this site.

DPAR = 30.9 (17th) DVOA = -1.7% (22nd)
DPAR = 18.2 (18th) DVOA = -5.1% (20th)
DPAR = 32.1 (20th) DVOA = 5.6% (23rd)
DPAR = 36.8 (14th) DVOA = 3.3% (17th)
DPAR = 107.1 (4th) DVOA = 35.8% (5th)

Now it seems to me that in October 2003, it would have been perfectly legitimate to have a discussion about the reasons people might choose to overrate Donovan McNabb's performance as a QB, assuming a lightning rod like limbaugh wasn't involved in starting the discussion.

by JB in DC (not verified) :: Sat, 08/13/2005 - 4:07pm

He may have been attacking the media primarily, but he most certainly was attacking McNabb as well. Here is what Limbaugh said:

"Sorry to say this, I don't think he's been that good from the get-go," Limbaugh said. "I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."

I can't imagine what a meeting among Limbaugh, McNabb, and Owens would be like. Just Limbaugh and Owens together would be entertainment enough.

by Daniel (not verified) :: Sat, 08/13/2005 - 4:23pm

The problem with Limbaugh's statements were that he insinuated that the reason McNabb was being overhyped was because he was black. And furthermore that there was an NFL agenda to promote African-American quarterbacks because it is good for the league's image. Limbaugh was making accusations without evidence, which is the way he runs his radio program. If this is true then where was all of that Akili Smith hype? Or even Duante Culpepper? Or Doug Williams? The NFL's problems with race relations doesn't reside on the field but in the positions of power: coach, GM, owner. Where there are woefully few minorities present.

I think the league is more concerned with guys like T.O. making an ass out of themselves than they are promoting individual players. Every team wants their quarterback to play well. They are playing the marquee position and success there usually translates directly into wins and revenue increases from ticket sales and merchandise.

Was McNabb overrated? Statistically maybe. But at the time Limbaugh made his statements McNabb had already led the Eagles to 2 NFC title games in a row and it is doubtful they would have even made it into the playoffs without him. I think the Eagles and their fans were very happy with his performances regardless of his statistical output.

by Devin McCullen (not verified) :: Sat, 08/13/2005 - 4:31pm

Looks like Rush got into the OxyContin again...

by SteelerBill (not verified) :: Sat, 08/13/2005 - 4:52pm

The real issue here isn't Limbaugh at all - its the continued insistence on people providing TO exactly what he wants which is more publicity..

by Jerry F. (not verified) :: Sat, 08/13/2005 - 5:05pm

I don't think you can say there was only a strong reaction to the McNabb comments because they were made by Rush. Look at what happened last week to the Giants broadcaster who made comments about Caribbean baseball players. Or look at the reaction to Dusty Baker's comments about black baseball players. An idea is attacked if it's dumb, or if it's controversial, but not just because a dumb, controversial person happens to have said it.
People like Rush try to read reverse racism into everything, and there are legions of caucasians eager to back him up any time a new incidence of it is cooked up.

by Nathan (not verified) :: Sat, 08/13/2005 - 5:23pm

Because Limbaugh is remotely sane...

From the August 11 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: We just had Stephen Breyer saying, oh, yeah, totally appropriate, we must import what they're doing around the world in other democracies, it will help buttress their attempt to establish the rule of law, and we might learn something, too. Well, here's something I'd like to import. I'd like to import the ability that the Brits are doing to export and deport a bunch of hate-rhetoric filled mullahs and imams that are stoking anti-American sentiment. Wouldn't it be great if anybody who speaks out against this country, to kick them out of the country? Anybody that threatens this country, kick 'em out. We'd get rid of Michael Moore, we'd get rid of half the Democratic Party if we would just import that law. That would be fabulous. The Supreme Court ought to look into this. Absolutely brilliant idea out there.

by Optical (not verified) :: Sat, 08/13/2005 - 5:29pm

"I don’t think he’s been that good from the get-go"

I don't really consider those words an "attack" on McNabb. Calling someone was consistently ranked near 20th and never near the top 5 "not that good" would seem to me an accurate assessment. Until last year, McNabb was in all truthfulness more of a game manager QB than a Peyton Manning. And this brings up the biggest problem with a McNabb discussion. Limbaugh-gate pretty much innoculated McNabb from any legitimate criticism, so no one can rationally argue that McNabb was not that good of a QB at that point in his career. This discussion is somewhat similar to discussing Michael Vick's value. Setting aside race for a moment, both McNabb and Vick led winning teams. Both winning teams had either a very good defense or very good running game that probably should have gotten more credit for the team's success than it did. But the QB is always the face of the team and therefore receives the lion's share of the credit or blame.

by Theo (not verified) :: Sat, 08/13/2005 - 5:41pm

Steve! Steve! Steve! Steve! Steve! Steve! Steve! Steve! Steve!

by Jerry F. (not verified) :: Sat, 08/13/2005 - 6:19pm

"But the QB is always the face of the team and therefore receives the lion’s share of the credit or blame."

So what does that have to do with him being black? This was true before McNabb came along.

by Catholic Samurai (not verified) :: Sat, 08/13/2005 - 6:42pm

re #3:

That is fabricated crap from groups like FAIR.

re #10:

Listen to the show. It was done half-jokingly. I heard that segment. He was just making a point.

But enough Limbaugh defending. Let's get to the McNabb/Owens thing. I have always thought one thing of McNabb, and it has been this:

He has no guts.

I mean, look at it this way: The guy has always had a built-in excuse to suck. The fans boo him because they didn't draft Smokey. His recievers have always sucked. He has to live with the stigma of being a "black quarterback". The Rush Limbaugh incident. Now here goes TO, and its like he has some confidence. Now they get to the Super Bowl without him and he gets "tired" during the Super Bowl and chokes.

Finally, he goes on TV and chews out Favre because Favre told Javon Walker to get his butt to camp, yet not worrying how the hold out of Owens (in a situation like Walker) will affect the Eagles. Look what has happened now: Walker is in camp and Owens is punking out McNabb.

Like I said, I believe McNabb doesn't have any guts. He is too much of a team-player (i.e. A pushover) and he is letting Owens run the show. The guy has had too many built-in excuses if he fails and not enough people cite this.

by Jerry F. (not verified) :: Sat, 08/13/2005 - 7:01pm

Other than him tiring out at the end of the Super Bowl and his receivers sucking, I have yet to see any of these "built-in excuses" actually used to justify what is perceived by a handful of people as poor play/leadership. McNabb has certainly never used any of them, not even the one about him being sick, which he denied, and certainly not about his receivers sucking. And neither he, nor anybody else, has ever said that his play has been subpar because of the Limbaugh incident, or because of the stigma of being a black QB. How are those excuses?

And do you really think that if McNabb had told Owens to quit holding out it would have any effect? Owens is a prima donna of a different magnitude.

by Optical (not verified) :: Sat, 08/13/2005 - 7:06pm


It doesn't have anything to do with either McNabb or Vick or anyone else being black. I'm not attempting to defend Limbaugh, at least primarily. What I would like to defend is the valid argument that at that time in his career, McNabb was in fact overrated. Now you or I or Limbaugh or anyone can come up with different reasons as to why we might think McNabb was being overrated back in 2002 and 2003, but that's besides my point.

by BillinNYC (not verified) :: Sat, 08/13/2005 - 7:08pm

#6 - In fact, as the stats above state, it appears that a number of quarterbacks could have gotten them to those NFC Championship games. McNabb in those years was only marginally above average. As for making statements without facts, 1. He's a commentator and that's what they do for a living - make observations and comment on them, and 2. he doesn't misstate any facts. He made an observation that McNabb's "excess" hype - which obviously wasn't matched with on-field performance - must be, in his opinion, because the media was looking for a great black QB to champion. Whether he is right or wrong about that observation is somewhat moot. Its gotten ridiculous in this culture that one can not make a racial (non-derogatory) comment without having a backlash. Limbaugh's comment about McNabb being average had nothing to do with the color of his skin - it was due to the fact that Rush thought he was - average. Well if you believe in DPAR and DVOA - HE WAS.

If you want to argue there was no hype, I can neither support or refute. As for why not the others: Akili Smith - he sucked from the get go, therefore no hype. Williams was a one-hit wonder and frankly there was some hype around him AT THE TIME. Why not around Culpepper? Can't say. Frankly, I think there was some hype, which was worthy. He had a good year in '00, but weak in the next two seasons thereafter.

You knew Limbaugh was going to lose his job, because that's the way things are, but it was so unjustified. As for #9, unlike the Carribean baseball players comment which basically called all Carribean ball players "stupid", Limbaugh did not make a racially derogatory remark.

the idea to mediate the dispute? No that's stupid!

by Jerry F. (not verified) :: Sat, 08/13/2005 - 7:36pm

Guys who were also mediocre according to DPAR and DVOA in 2002: Tom Brady (13,18), Brett Favre (16,22), Culpepper (24,29).
2001: Brady (15,17), Culpepper (17,18)
Lots of players get a lot of hype, often out of proportion to their performance. If you hold down a starting job in the NFL there will be a ton of stories written about you. If you win games, they will usually be positive, at least in the national media. The problem with guys like Limbaugh is that they're really eager to say that blacks get positive attention because they're black. Nobody was mad that he thought McNabb was overrated, but that it had to be the result of reverse racism. It's too typical for people to attribute success, or hype, for blacks to non-performance based factors.

by Adam H (not verified) :: Sat, 08/13/2005 - 7:54pm

RE #9 "and there are legions of caucasians"
Stereotype much? There is no such thing as reverse racism, racism is racism.

by Jerry F. (not verified) :: Sat, 08/13/2005 - 8:00pm

Stereotype? You deny that there are a lot of white people who complain that blacks often get preferrential treatment? That's not a stereotype. It would be a stereotype if I said "legions of Southerners," or "rednecks," or Republicans.
Okay, I'm just using a term very commonly used by those legions mentioned above. But just using the term "racism" is no problem.

by B (not verified) :: Sat, 08/13/2005 - 8:18pm

McNabb with Pinkston and Thrash as his top recievers: DPAR ranked ~17th.
McNabb with Owens as his top receiver: DPAR ranked 5th.
Which Conculsion to make,l McNabb is overrated, or his wide recivers sucked pre-TO? I'd go with the second one. I don't know how anybody could watch the Panthers dbs take ball after ball out of the Eagles WRs' hands in the NFC championship game and conclude that McNabb was over-rated.

by Moses (not verified) :: Sat, 08/13/2005 - 8:45pm

"The real issue here isn’t Limbaugh at all - its the continued insistence on people providing TO exactly what he wants which is more publicity..

It's part of the master "TO ruins his career and take the Eagles with him plan." The more publicity he gets, the worse he gets. The worse he gets, the more impossible his situation becomes. The more impossible the situation becomes, the worse he gets, which gets him publicity...

It's coming to the point that just about anything seems possible.

by Kibbles (not verified) :: Sat, 08/13/2005 - 8:56pm

Guys, can we stop talking about McNabb's "average" DVOA prior to Owens showing up? His WRs were Thrash and Pinkston. Can anyone else name a worse pair of starting WRs in any of those seasons? I think being average was quite an accomplishment in that situation. Just look at what happened the second he got a decent receiving corps. He became all-world.

Criticising McNabb for being "average" would be like criticising Elway for being "average". Sure, he didn't put up great numbers, but he single handedly carried an average team to the superbowl. Likewise, McNabb never put up stellar numbers, but he single-handedly kept that offense afloat, especially before Westbrook and Owens came to town. 2002 was one of the most remarkable QB seasons I've ever witnessed.

By the way, do those DVOA numbers take into account his rushing numbers?

by Aaron (not verified) :: Sat, 08/13/2005 - 10:49pm

Kibbles, we list DVOA for passing and rushing separately for quarterbacks, because our ratings don't truly isolate the abilities of a single player, and passing DVOA is somewhat dependent on the quality of receivers, rushing DVOA of course is not. I believe McNabb has always been pretty good as a runner.

I am begging people not to discuss racism or Rush Limbaugh's politics, etc. on this website. Comments 19, 20, and so forth. Not that I don't like a good political argument, but we try to keep this to football.

by Nathan (not verified) :: Sun, 08/14/2005 - 12:16am

Re: 24

I understand why, but when you bring up a silly article in this context, I think it all becomes relevant. What else would this thread contain?

by Josh (not verified) :: Sun, 08/14/2005 - 12:26am

I totally expected that this would be a link to an article from the onion or sportspickle.com

by LnGrrrR (not verified) :: Sun, 08/14/2005 - 2:07am

I think McNabb really proved he could be a top QB last year. Before we never knew...was it McNabb or the receivers? Well with a good WR on his team, hiws comp % jumped up to 63-64 or so if I remember...I mean, just transformed really.

by Kibbles (not verified) :: Sun, 08/14/2005 - 4:28am

Aaron, thanks for the clarification. I just checked his 2002 numbers and they really were as remarkable as I remembered. Ridiculous rushing DVOA- waaaay above Michael Vick's. That's the season where he had that herculean effort, played almost an entire game on a broken ankle and his play didn't suffer once. I mean, he was a lot less mobile, but he still looked like the best player on the field. Just took the game over.

That's the game that made me a Donovan McNabb fan. I used to say that McNair was the next John Elway, but McNabb's a much better parrallel. Lots of success with horrible surrounding talent, despite rather pedestrian numbers. Frequently takes the game over and carries the team on his back. Finally gets the supporting cast and becomes unstoppable. Plus that scrambling is a thing of beauty. I remember the pass play... last season, was it? The one where he scampered around in the backfield for at least 10 seconds just avoiding rusher after rusher, never crossing the line of scrimmage, and finally shaking free and delivering a bomb. If anything, I'd call him UNDERrated.

By the way, Aaron, the column titles above the QB rushing stats for the 2002 season don't line up. You have an extra column for PAR rank that you don't have for the other seasons, and it's unlabeled, so all the other headers wind up being off by one. Just FYI.

by Kibbles (not verified) :: Sun, 08/14/2005 - 4:33am

Also, I just noticed... over the last 3 seasons, Trent Green has been 2nd, 5th, and 1st in rushing DVOA. I never would have guessed in a million years.

by Jake (not verified) :: Sun, 08/14/2005 - 10:58am

Re: 14 No, its actually a true story in Newsday(Oct 8 1990) in which Limbaugh apologizes for telling a black caller, "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back" and under his current format he's said "Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?" and "The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies."

The quote from Newsday is "Recalling a stint as an "insult-radio" DJ in Pittsburgh, he admits feeling guilty about, for example, telling a black listener he could not understand to 'take that bone out of your nose and call me back.'"

Rush is a bigot and an idiot. When you think volcanos do more harm to the ozone than man made products, you're an idiot. When you claim that nicotine has not been proven to be addictive and that smoking hasn't been proven to cause cancer you're an idiot. When you claim that there is more forest in the US now than at the time of the Constitution is signed, you're an idiot. We don't need to get into his evaluation of NFL QBs to know this.

by Machiavelli (not verified) :: Sun, 08/14/2005 - 12:25pm

Young owens has studied my teachings well.

by Nathan (not verified) :: Sun, 08/14/2005 - 2:15pm

This was going to be a quote from the last 2 weeks from Limbaugh to verify that he is still horribly racist.

Instead, to respect Aaron's wishes. I will say,

Being "overrated" or "underrated" is opinion. There is no way to really have a true discussion on the topic because each person's feel is different, and we don't even have a true estimate of how good a player is to compare the issue to.

Especially when you consider the moving of a player from one team to another, and the significant changes that occur in that players production. I think there are too many variables to give an accurate portrayl of anything other than, does this player help our team win.

McNabb does this. If you put additional players around him that fit into his skills, we will improve the people around him.

That is what a QB does. It's a very difficult position, and I think the level of talent around is often used to diminish the talents of the QB.

by Aaron (not verified) :: Sun, 08/14/2005 - 3:02pm

Thanks, Nathan ... I know there's a thin line between knocking Rush's politics, and knocking Rush just because of his ridiculous idea that a political talk show host would be the right person to make peace between two football players, one of whom he very famously criticized a year ago.

by Whatever0 (not verified) :: Sun, 08/14/2005 - 3:36pm

I'd always thought McNabb was an above-average, if not top-tier, QB. I thought the recievers were holding him back some, but, after watching what he did with Owens, I think it was more than many people thought. Rush had a valid opinion, but he should have saved the political commentary for his show and the football commentary for the football show.

Slight derail, just because these kinds of painful memories don't fade with age.
Kibbles: As far as the worst WR starting pair in 02/03: In 2002, Travis Taylor started 16 games for the Ravens. After Stokely was injured (He only made 5 starts), the Ravens started Javin Hunter (Career stat line: 5 catches, 2 fumbles), Ron Johnson (11 catches in his career, ten of which came in 02), and Randy Hymes (Had six catches in 02 as a rookie, then had decent success as a slot reciever in 04). The combined production for the Ravens No. 2,3,4, and 5 WRs: 45 catches, 629 yards, 3 TDs.

by BillinNYC (not verified) :: Sun, 08/14/2005 - 3:55pm

Slightly off-topic: All the TO coverage is ridiculous, but I must say... someone has to tell Donovan not to wear the headband while conducting interviews. Its not a good look.

by Nathan (not verified) :: Sun, 08/14/2005 - 4:31pm

re: 35

I'll second that. That had to be the first thing I noticed watching him.

by Moses (not verified) :: Sun, 08/14/2005 - 5:31pm

Jake: #30

Well said. But the problem is that facts generally don't sway dittoheads.

by johonny (not verified) :: Sun, 08/14/2005 - 6:08pm

"I could bring these two guys together. I've been there, folks, and I could do this, and I'm serious in my desire to do it."

Bahahahahahahha. Beware of relationship advice from a man thats the Elizabeth Taylor of marriage longivity.

by Jerry F. (not verified) :: Sun, 08/14/2005 - 7:24pm

Wouldn't Elizabeth Taylor be the "Elizabeth Taylor of marriage longevity"?

by B (not verified) :: Sun, 08/14/2005 - 8:25pm

I thought Larry King was the Elizabeth Taylor of marriage longevity.

by Catholic Samurai (not verified) :: Sun, 08/14/2005 - 9:34pm

re #30:

You can always e-mail me (just follow my name) and you can continue to prove how much you don't know. But back to the task at hand.

It would be a riot to have them on there with Rush. Does he really want to do it? Yes and no. It would upset liberals tremendously and give Rush mega-publicity (which would be the main reason for Rush doing it) and it would give Owens more publicity than he could shake a stick at (which is the reaosn he would do it).

by Nathan (not verified) :: Sun, 08/14/2005 - 10:16pm

Like I said, I believe McNabb doesn’t have any guts. He is too much of a team-player (i.e. A pushover) and he is letting Owens run the show. The guy has had too many built-in excuses if he fails and not enough people cite this.

Why would McNabb need to be anything he is not? If he is a team-player (or your idea of a pushover), and that is who he is as a person, what makes you think he should change that?

What makes you think it's his responsibilty to make Owens be a grown man?

And why would people cite that? He's an excellent Quaterback.

Just playing in the NFL is an accomplishment. Playing at his level is simply amazing.

Complaining about one of the top 5 QB's because he's not one of the top 2 QB's.

Or even Complaining about a top 15 QB who isn't a top 5 QB is silly.

He doesn't owe anything to anyone else, and can be the man he wants to be. As can anyone else without his level of accomplishments.

by Nathan (not verified) :: Sun, 08/14/2005 - 10:24pm

And to continue

It would be a riot to have them on there with Rush. Does he really want to do it? Yes and no.

Yes and yes. That's an absolute no contest.

It would upset liberals tremendously

It wouldn't upset me at all. I would love it. By all means. Please.

And give Rush mega-publicity (which would be the main reason for Rush doing it)

That I will agree with.

And it would give Owens more publicity than he could shake a stick at (which is the reaosn he would do it).

He wouldn't do it. I don't think even he, as childish as he is right now, would demean himself like that.

Neither would McNabb.

by Dervin (not verified) :: Sun, 08/14/2005 - 10:52pm

You know, maybe this is a ploy by McNabb to get back at Rush. Did anybody watch the episode of OZ where Ryan O'reily gets the reporter to spend the night with his brother?

I can see it now, McNabb on the way to the studio calls T.O. and "Hey, did you listen to Rush yesterday? I didn't think so. But anyway he said the reason for your contract holdout is you Grandmom needs a new bed for all the guys she's been seeing..."

by Cathoic Samurai (not verified) :: Sun, 08/14/2005 - 10:53pm


I don't mean your run of the mill liberal would be upset, I'm talking about your super sensitive ones and people who just don't like him in the first place (hello, Tom Jackson).

Anyway, there is something to this whole T.O. situation that I haven't seen anyone bring up: Could T.O.'s attitude be more of his agents desire to stir the pot and get more money then T.O.'s decision for a new contract. I mean, during these post-blow up interviews, every time you would see T.O., his white shadow was right beside him.

by Rich (not verified) :: Mon, 08/15/2005 - 1:20am

Re: #30

Try reading a little history before mouthing off about forests.

There's really is actually quite a good chance there's more forest in the US now than at the time the Constitution was signed. I don't know if it's actually true, but it's not as open-and-shut as you think it is.

Why? Because almost nobody farms anymore. Farmers clearcut lots and lots of places back then to make room for themselves.

Here in Massachusetts (and I'd bet lots of New England) the state is more forested than it has been since the 1700s because much of the land that was farms back then and clear-cut has reverted back to forest.

As for the specific topic of the article, while it would never work, having TO, McNabb, and Limbaugh on the same show at the same time would be a must-listen-to event. Make sure they're all in the studio (no phone calls allowed), though, to increase the chances of someone slugging somebody :-)

by Kibbles (not verified) :: Mon, 08/15/2005 - 1:57am

Re #34: There's just one problem with that. None of those guys were the Raven's #2 receiver. That would have been Todd Heap- 68 receptions, 836 yards, 6 TDs.

Re #46: I wouldn't doubt it if someone told me that there was more forest in New England now than at the time the constitution was signed. I think it would actually make a lot of sense. However, there's a lot more to America than New England. When the constitution was signed, it was still two decades until the Louisianna Purchase and a good quarter century until anyone had any idea what their Manifest Destiny might have been. When the constitution was signed, the Mississippi River was referred to as the far west.

Anyway, back to the subject at hand. TRENT GREEN is the best rushing QB in the NFL? Come on, isn't anyone else as shocked by this as I am?

by Daniel Warehall (not verified) :: Mon, 08/15/2005 - 10:25am


I think that is a sign of how good KC's offensive line is, along with small sample size...

by Johonny (not verified) :: Mon, 08/15/2005 - 12:31pm

Larry King. Bahahahahahaha. You got me there:)

by RowdyRoddyPiper (not verified) :: Mon, 08/15/2005 - 12:33pm

inre: #46

Rich, you may want to take a little of your own advice.

It is in fact a dead certainty that there is more forest in the US now than at the time the constitution was signed.

The reason is simple and it has nothing to do with your ridiculous farming argument (the land that was agricultural use on the east coast has reverted to strip malls, not forests). The reason one could claim that there is more forest in the US now than in 1791 is simple...it's called the Louisiana Purchase for starters, throw in the Gadsden Purchase and the Transcontinental Treaty for good measure and lo and behold, the current US has more acreage of forest than the US as defined at the signing of the constitution.

It's an intellecutally dishonest statement and if you look at it on an apples to apples basis (comparing the same geographic areas across time periods) the US contains roughly 30% less forested acreage now, than in 1791 (fyi massachusetts had roughly 4MM Acres of forest in 1791 and 3.1MM in 2000). There's a link to this info on my name.

What's I'd really enjoy seeing is Aaron and the FO team discussing QB performance with Rush. Or maybe to satisfy those that feel it necessary to make these pointless distintctions FO could ammend the Best QB season ever to have a Best QB season by a White Christian QB, Jewish QB, Black QB and as the US census so delicately puts it Other QB.

by Shalimar (not verified) :: Tue, 08/16/2005 - 9:00am

Wow, Rush says something incredibly stupid for publicity. Who would have guessed that was coming? McNabb managed to keep quiet a few years ago and avoid any Limbaugh slime. I doubt Donovan will even comment on Rush as mediator now. He doesn't have any reason to make up with Rush or TO (other than football reasons, and it seems to me that the QB has the ball and the WR wants it, so its up to the WR to at a minimum not continually badmouth the QB for no discernable reason).

On the other hand, saying something incredibly stupid for publicity seems to be TO's style too, so I'm thinking Rush and TO should drop McNabb from the threesome and head off to a gay marriage state and tie the knot. They could lie in bed every night discussing tips on how to antagonize more people and get richer as a result. They would be an absolutely perfect marital match.

by Pat (not verified) :: Tue, 08/16/2005 - 11:33am

Re: 46, 50: For God's sake, anyone who thinks we haven't deforested a large part of the US never lived in eastern Pennsylvania. The entire state was forest before we got there. The entire state.

Anyway, back to the subject at hand. TRENT GREEN is the best rushing QB in the NFL? Come on, isn’t anyone else as shocked by this as I am?

Nonononono! Trent Green has put up some of the best rushing performances of a QB. He just hasn't done it all that often. He rushed 14 times in 2004, 17 in 2003, and 27 times in 2002. For comparison, McNabb rushed 30 times in 2004, 58 times in 2003, and 57 times in 2002. Green rushes about as often as Peyton Manning does - that is, probably in emergency situations only - but Green is much more mobile.

If Green was encouraged to run more often, his DVOA would likely go down. Still, it is telling that Green probably would have thrived under a more mobile quarterbacking scheme.

by Jerry Garcia (not verified) :: Tue, 08/16/2005 - 11:36am

So, where do we go from here?
I guess we need Pat Buchanan to give his opinion of Chad Pennington's rehab. And maybe David Duke can provide some insight as well...

by Starshatterer (not verified) :: Tue, 08/16/2005 - 12:19pm

Pat (#52 )--
Re: 46, 50: For God’s sake, anyone who thinks we haven’t deforested a large part of the US never lived in eastern Pennsylvania. The entire state was forest before we got there. The entire state.
But we're not comparing "before we got here", we're comparing "at the time of the Constitution is signed" (sic #30 ), more than a century after Philadelphia was founded. By that time, Philadelphia was already a large city. A great deal of the clear-cutting for farming in eastern Pennsylvania was already done by then.

The simple truth is, Limbaugh probably chose that event (the Constitutional Convention) because that best served his point (forest regrowth since the advent of chemical fertilizer and mechanized agriculture). No matter if you think Rush is an idiot, he's pretty good at picking a narrow point he can win on, to try and disprove a larger point he shouldn't be able to win on. Not that we're actively arguing with Rush, here, but quibbling the small point (the exact amount of forest cover now, compared with 1787), obfuscates the larger point (how much we should do to mitigate the environmental impact of human population).

Getting back to the whole T.O. thing -- this is another thing Rush is good at: invite guests he'll never have to see, to look more statesmanlike and to get people talking about him. And since we're all here talking about The Rushinator, he's probably achieved what he wanted.

Kinda like Owens, in fact. He's not likely to get the money he wants, so the attention will have to do.

by Parker (not verified) :: Tue, 08/16/2005 - 12:45pm

I think Piper has it right in post 50.

While Rush is right his point is, as always, pointless. There is more forest in the US now than in the late 1700's. Correct. But he is ignoring the fact that the US was a lot smaller back then. The Louisiana Purchase didn't take place until 1803, Alaska and Hawaii didn't come along until much later and blah blah blah. Based on straight acerage, there is more forest in the US now, but there is also a lot more US!

I weigh 150 pounds more than I did 25 years ago. That's shocking, isn't it. You could build all kinds of theories about my diet or exercise routine based on that fact and they would appear to have a bit of merit as long as you ignore (or don't mention) the fact that I was 8 years old 25 years ago.

by Pat (not verified) :: Tue, 08/16/2005 - 1:08pm

No matter if you think Rush is an idiot, he’s pretty good at picking a narrow point he can win on, to try and disprove a larger point he shouldn’t be able to win on.

Absolutely, because the strawman argument is probably the trickiest logical fallacy to actually see.

Actually, for those who actually listen to Limbaugh, his show should be used in debating teams as an "identiy the logical fallacy in use here". Granted, this is typical of most radio talk hosts (who, after all, are not really debating someone).

Kinda like Owens, in fact. He’s not likely to get the money he wants, so the attention will have to do.

Yah. It sucks that we actually pay attention to these people. Why are we talking to Freddie Mitchell, after all?

by Tim Towns (not verified) :: Tue, 08/16/2005 - 1:32pm

What Limbaugh's comments boil down to is HIS need to get attention. It doesn't matter what the subject matter is. His usual modus operandi.

by Starshatterer (not verified) :: Tue, 08/16/2005 - 1:35pm

Parker (#55 )--
There is more forest in the US now than in the late 1700’s. Correct. But he is ignoring the fact that the US was a lot smaller back then.
In every report I have read about the squabble between Limbaugh and FAIR over his forest claim, both sides are referring to all 50 states.

Limbaugh used lots of other verbal dodges you can criticize (citing statistics from 1920 and 1952, for example -- although the Forest Service itself doesn't have anything better than estimates for forest cover prior to 1840 anyway). Why make up new ones he didn't actually use?

by Parker (not verified) :: Tue, 08/16/2005 - 3:57pm

Star, you've got me. I was only going on the information printed in this thread. I have not listened to Limbaugh in years and was, until reading this, unaware that he had made any such comments.

Just another in a long list of lessons that should teach me to keep quiet when I don't really know what I am talking about.

by RowdyRoddyPiper (not verified) :: Tue, 08/16/2005 - 10:47pm

"In every report I have read about the squabble between Limbaugh and FAIR over his forest claim, both sides are referring to all 50 states."

There's a link to the stats in my name in post #50. If Rush was indeed talking about the area comprising the US currently, in both time periods, he's grossly wrong. I'm fully aware they are just estimates before 1840, but if you can't trust the US forest services estimates, what data source can you use?

by RowdyRoddyPiper (not verified) :: Tue, 08/16/2005 - 11:03pm

As if this horse weren't beaten to death, you can see Rush's "rebuttals" to this and other allegations by clicking the link on my name.

The rebuttal to point 1 is totally laughable. As someone who trades asset backed securities (such as student loans) I can tell you that the risk described is operational risk, which is fully within the control of the bank, rather than market risks, which are not.
Despite what Fritz Elmendorf will tell you banks are not paid for operational risk, that's why he's in communications, not on the trading desk.

His rebuttal to the deforestation claim doesn't even address his original point.
Maybe if things don't work out for TO he can become a commentator, he's shown the requisite logical skills so far.

by T. Diddy (not verified) :: Wed, 08/17/2005 - 1:27am

I always thought that the Eagles could never win the Super Bowl until they added a solid Rush attack...

by Melish (not verified) :: Wed, 08/17/2005 - 1:58am

Yeah. All those points duly noted, but if you're ready to get over your weak-minded dependence on facts, email me and I'll show you just how much you don't know.