I have been shut down twice in the last week in my quest to buy life insurance on Rex Grossman. First, Kevin Heilbroner of Liberty Mutual wouldn't sell to me. Next, the chick in the white outfit from the Progressive television commercials shut me down. I'm not sorry about that. She really creeps me out. I was left with no alternative but to call the little green lizard. Here is how our conversation went.
“Hey little green lizard, do you remember the Budweiser frogs? Your days are numbered. The woodchucks are way cuter than you not to mention smarter. Even the little “wee wee” pig makes you look pitiful. Now, how about selling me life insurance on Rex Grossman's life?”
In a snooty little British sing-songy accent it replied,”Chip, chip, cheery O, insurance on Rex? That's a big no go.” Then after a pause it continued, “But we are running a special on David Beckham. How's that mate?” I know the gecko thinks it is Australian, but who the hell knows the nationality of a talking lizard?
This year the Redskins conducted a scientific experiment. They weren't aware of it, but they did. Maybe they should have applied for some government grants. That could have helped pay for the Albert Haynesworth fiasco. “Haynesworth” just got flagged by my spellchecker as misspelled. Here is a good definition for irrelevant. Something is irrelevant when it isn't worth adding to your spell check dictionary. I think “Haynesworth” qualifies at this point.
What makes me an expert on matters of science? In the late 1970's, I flunked out of the University of Pennsylvania as a physics major. How's that – Ivy League no less. I think we can now agree that I am a scientific expert. What experiment did the Redskins undertake this year? First let me define the nature of scientific experiments. Then, I will explain how such an experiment was carried out by my beloved Skins.
In scientific matters, we often make assumptions in the pursuit of advanced knowledge. In this case, let's assume you are the coach of an NFL team with an offense. OK, I know that assumption hasn't applied to the Redskins since about 1991. We are talking hypothetically here. Let's further assume that our prolific NFL offense scores 19.2 points per game through fifteen games. I know this sounds a lot like our Redskins, but have some patience. Our task is to determine if the problem lies with our quarterback or with the rest of the offense. How would you go about determining whether your quarterback is the problem?
Any brilliant physicist, such as Stephen Hawking or Richard Feynman, would tell you to play some games with one quarterback. Then switch quarterbacks for the rest. If your offense performs the same with either quarterback, you have your answer. The problem isn't the quarterback. It's the rest of the team. This isn't quantum physics, which is good since I wasn't good as a physicist. Let's now apply this to the Redskins 2010 season.
Coach Shanahan and his offensive genius prodigy son, Kyle, have graciously provided us with a mountain of data to analyze. From NFL.com, I obtained the following raw scientific data through fifteen games.
Quarterback McNabb Rex the Wonder Dog
Pass attempts 472 89
Completion % 58.3% 53.9%
Touchdown % 3.0% 5.6%
Interception % 3.2% 3.4%
Sacks 37 7
Sack % 7.8% 7.9%
Quarterback rating 77.1 77.4
Hmmmmmmmm. The statistics are pretty even aren't they? When the Coaches Shanahan changed quarterbacks, the results stayed the same. What did we learn earlier? When you change the variable, in this case quarterback, and the results don't change, that means the variable isn't responsible for the results. Therefore, according to Hawking and Feynman, the problem with the Redskin's offense isn't the quarterback. The problem is the rest of the offense.
I could be a cynic and tell you that the Coaches Shanahan are classic perpetrators of the “solving the wrong problem” crime. However, since you know me as well as you do and you know I am just not a critical person, I choose to believe that the Coaches Shanahan were in fact out to prove all along the Redskin's offense isn't very talented. That way, they can go to the owner, Dan Snyder, and tell him the team needs to stockpile draft choices by trading off aging veterans. If I drink a few more Blue Moons (eight or ten), I might actually believe that.
Now let's apply the logic to the great Stitely & Karstetter potty controversy. The last time a bathroom was changed in our office, it was not done under scientifically controlled circumstances. Therefore, any measurement of the change in morale was scientifically invalid. I called Richard Feynman to ask about this. Of course, I'm still waiting for an answer. He's dead, but still more brilliant as a corpse than I will ever be alive.
This time the men of the office have taken up the challenge. We will remodel our bathroom under strictly controlled scientific conditions. Then we will measure the change in morale compared to the base measurement of moral, which is our billings for last year during tax season. If our billings are up over last year by at least 10%, we will know changing the men's dumpster has increased morale. We need a theme for our bathroom remodeling project. The women chose some sort of french theme. The men have chosen a much more patriotic theme – Jennifer Aniston.
We are now accepting donations of Jennifer Aniston memorabilia. Your donations are tax deductible. After all this is in the interest of science. We will also be applying for federal grants to purchase clothing items and maybe fund a personal appearance from Jen to dedicate the facility. Maybe she will christen the commode for us. We would be honored to have Jen squeeze one off for our ceremony. Please keep in mind your donations should be in mint or gently used condition. You know what I mean here. At least, wash them off. We expect the dedication ceremony to be right after tax season. Mark your schedule to come by and visit our shrine to America's most beautiful movie star and my future mistress. Does anyone know where we can find some Friends – themed toilet paper?
No comments:
Post a Comment