Oh, Roger Brown (and the rest of the Plain Dealer)

Wow, what a day for the PD.

Roger Brown went after Phil Savage today, because, my lord, the Browns lost their first game. Fire the bastard!:

Why, after two years of spending tens of millions of dollars on offensive linemen (Joe Andruzzi, L.J. Shelton, Bob Hallen, Cosey Coleman and Kevin Shaffer, among others) do the Browns still have a line incapable of keeping a quarterback from running his rear off all game - merely to survive all four quarters?

Agreed, what the hell is Savage trying to do here, upgrade the line? What an asshole.

Really, in your heart of hearts, do you think this offensive line would be a top-quality NFL unit even if injured center LeCharles Bentley had played this season?

I think that if the Browns had A) a pro-bowl center and B) the same unit working together for the entire preseason (with the aforementioned pro-bowl center) they'd be un-gawd-awful. But that's just me.

Since it's obvious rookie inside linebacker D'Qwell Jackson and veteran Chaun Thompson are of equal talent - Jackson barely won the starting job over Thompson - shouldn't you have devoted the second-round pick you spent on Jackson to taking a promising offensive lineman? While the best OL prospects were still available on the draft's first day?

Doesn't it raise a red flag that Jackson, an experienced college inside linebacker, struggled to beat out a guy (Thompson) who hadn't played the position in years?

Maybe I'm missing something here, but shouldn't the red flag be raised because Thompson, a veteran player, lost to a rookie? Jackson did have 7 tackles last week, and by all acounts draft experts liked this pick. And really, in your heart of hearts, do you think this offensive line would be a top-quality NFL unit even if Savage drafted linemen in the second round?

Isn't it an indictment of your 2005 draft that only two picks are starters (Charlie Frye, Braylon Edwards) - while two are low-wattage backups (Brodney Pool, Antonio Perkins), two are totally gone (Nick Speegle, Jonathan Dunn), one is a practice-squad player (Andrew Hoffman) and another was put on the inactive list against New Orleans, at Crennel's behest (David McMillan)?

Isn't it an early indictment of your 2006 draft that third-round pick Travis Wilson was, like McMillan, a "healthy scratch" for the New Orleans opener?

Oh I agree, is says so much that a rookie 3rd round pick, who held out, didn't play the first game of the season. Says sooo much.

Doesn't your signing of free-agent receiver Joe Jurevicius look, more and more, like a move high in sentimentality - but low in actual productivity? (Jurevicius is a Lake Catholic High grad.) And wasn't that the case even before Jurevicius was injured in the season opener, sidelining him for several weeks?

Yes, this move was high in sentimentality. Savage was sentimental for a possesion reciever. The sentimental baby.

Can't the same be said regarding your signing of free-agent linebacker Willie McGinest, the former New England star whose leadership ability seems to exceed his playing skill?

Yes, Savage is a terrible GM because he signed a veteran leader who sucked so bad that he had 3 sacks in the playoffs last year. Awful.

It's classic Brown. Good times. Though maybe I'm not hard enough on the Browns. Though really, it was one game. The line has been together for about 60 minutes. Let's wait and see just how awful this team really (and it could get bad).

(if all you want is sports, stop reading here)

-----------------------

Then I turned to the Editorial page and read this goodness:

I am amazed by the oversim plification of reality that pac ifists espouse in their reactions to Kevin O'Brien's Sept. 6 column (Letters, Sept. 10). Consider, if you are against unleashing the "dogs of war," what would you have your nation do when it is attacked? I never get an answer to that question. Roll over and play dead? Become their slaves, like Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, France, Spain, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Holland, Egypt and a host of others did during the World War II?

How firmly will you stand on your pacifistic ideals when your nation is run by the Muslim Taliban demanding that you "convert or die"? Will you, in fact, choose to die for your beliefs, as opposed to acquiescing to violent resistance?

It is equally amazing that I have never seen a pacifist object to the existence or use of police force to enforce order (through the threat of violence, arrest or disarming a violent offender). How is the use of an armed police force any different from that of an army, protecting and enforcing the laws of a civilized society? If you are a pacifist, threatened by an armed robber or a rapist, would you refuse to call the police in response to the crime against you? With what depth of conviction and consistency do you hold to your ideals?

Rev. Bob Higgins Painesville

Higgins is pastor of Here's Hope Baptist Church.

My question is this: In what scenario is our nation in danger of being overtaken by the "Muslim Taliban" When would we ever be told to convert or die? When? If the worse case scenario ever happened (a nuke goes off in an American city) whoever's group set it off would cease to exist. Done. The nation harboring that group? Gone. And most likely we'd just bomb the shit out of other nations in the region. There is no scenario that we'd be over taken by the "Muslim Taliban". Not saying the complete pacifism is the answer, but come on, let's have a realistic view of the world shall we?

Then, I read this colum by Kevin O'Brien. I'm not going to into a whole lot of detail here, but he accuses people of not recognizing that we're at war and that some people who read this column would have a hard time identifying between the good guys (The US) and the bad (Terrorists). Well done. Nevermind the fact that we went to two wars and we cut taxes (um, I believe we're the first nation ever to do so). Never mind that the only thing we're asked to sacrifice is our personal liberties. Are we asked to carpool (Ride alone and you ride with Hitler)? No. Who has a victory garden? Anyone?

He also says the time of war is not the time question our national security policies. Right, cause the Constitution gets put on hold when we're at war.

Needless to say, they got some letters to the editor today.