The New Democrat Online

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

David Spada: Video: Slingin Sonny Jurgenson: The Redskins Gunslinger


This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Press on Blogger

To look at some of the shortcomings of former NFL QB Sonny Jurgenson, before I get into why he’s one of the top 10 QB’s of all time, maybe top five, those shortcomings are more about the teams that he played for. He played for very good teams in Philadelphia in the early 1960s and they started sliding by the mid 60s. The Eagles were annual losers by the late 60s and early 70s and Sonny gets traded to the Redskins in 1964. Who hadn’t had a winning season even since 1955, which would go on for another five seasons in Washington.

I’m not making excuses for Sonny, because he did play a long time without leading a team to a championship. Eighteen seasons from 1957-74 but for the most part, he played for a lot of mediocre teams. Where a good year was 7-7 or 7-5, 8-6. These are records that generally doesn’t get teams to the playoffs. So even as Sonny was playing for mediocre teams, he was a great QB on those teams, the best player on these teams. Doing every he can for teams that weren’t very good, had good players, great even, but not very good all around teams. Teams that struggled to win every week.

The way I describe Sonny Jurgenson, was a championship caliber QB who played on a lot of mediocre and even bad teams. I still believe that had Sonny played in Super Bowl 7 against the undefeated Miami Dolphins the Redskins would’ve given the Dolphins only loss that year. Because the Redskins did have a great team on both sides of the ball and I believe a better all around team than the Dolphins. That at least had more talent.

But of course Sonny was hurt with a busted ankle, so that didn’t happen, but the Redskins didn’t win championships in the 1960s and 70s because of Sonny Jurgenson. They weren’t very good in the mid and late 1960s because of the players they had around Sonny. No running game, a weak offensive line and a defense that probably gave up more points than Sonny and those great receivers put up every week. To where they were one of the highest scoring teams in the NFL every year, despite not having much of a running game.

I believe Dan Marino is the best QB of all time as far as just throwing the football. And had he had the running game and defense that Joe Montana had in San Francisco with the 49ers, Marino leads the Dolphins to four Super Bowl championships or more in the 1980s and 90s. We’ll never know that of course, but that’s how great Dan the man was. But no one handled the ball better than Sonny, as far as play action and knowing exactly when to throw the ball. And what to put on the ball, than Sonny.

I don’t believe a QB ever had better eye-hand co√∂rdination than Sonny. The ability to pick spots on the field as far when to throw the ball, how much to on the ball and where to throw the football. He was sort of like the Larry Bird of the NFL when it came to ball handling. And had great eye-hand co√∂rdination which is why he was such a great QB. Even though he never led a team to winning a championship.


FRSFreeState: Brookings Institution: Explaining the Education Choice and Competition Index



When people speak about school choice, they are generally talking about vouchers that would go to parents. Who live in an area where their kids are forced to go to a bad school and can't afford to send their kids to private schools. So they would get a voucher to be able to send their kid to a private school, I'm not in favor of private school vouchers. If states and localities want to do this, then thats their business, unless its Maryland or Montgomery County. Were to do this, where I live then that would become part of my business but school choice is really about. Being able to send your kids to the right school for them, no matter where you live instead of students. Being assigned to a public school based on where you live and there is something called. Public school choice that would allow parents to send their kids to the schools of their choice, that they. Believe is the right school for them, again no matter where they live which is something I'm in favor of.

I'm in favor of public school choice because it would bring needed competition to public education in America. And have public schools literally competing with each other for students every year, rather then automatically. Being assigned students no matter the of level of education that they provide for their students. So if schools do a good job, there are, going to be plenty of students that are going to want to go to that school. But if a school is failing, then that school would end up losing a lot of students, the students they currently have. As well as new students they normally would have in the future, if that school was still a monopoly. Choice and competition is one answer to how we reform public education in America because it would literally. Put schools against each other and make competitors out of them and force them to go a good job or end. Up losing students, money and perhaps even educators in the future, because it would end up being. A place where people don't want to go.

You can still be in favor of teachers unions and the right to organize, as a Liberal or Progressive. And still be favor of quality public education, as long as you are in the business of public education. Rather then teacher unions and be in favor of reforms that would bring about better schools in this country. And school choice is just one example of a reform that would improve our public schools.

The Hill: Alexander Bolton: Both Sides Edging Toward Deficit Deal

Both sides edging toward deficit deal - The Hill

There's a balanced deficit reduction package in the future, I can feel it Speaker Boehner knows he has to get this done. Or failure will be taken out on him and House Republicans.