Following is a psychological analysis of some of the controversy that goes on and on with nobody arriving at a solution as to why the Redskins are losing. I'm not a psychologist but neither is Ann Landers and that doesn't mean that we don't have insights.

The George Allen excuse. Allen advocates emotional football and secondly follows up with mental processes. Right there, some people are going to feel slighted because they've learned to thrust with mental first and then parry with enotions. Perhaps that's not totally negative because some people are predominantly, temperamentally mental types. But, whichever of these two approaches you take, why do you want to deprive those emotioinal types of having fun by having an alternative in life?

Further, I hate the Cowboys but I love the Cowboys. This is not a contradiction. I think the Cowboys lead with a mental game first and then fall back on emotions. I hate them because they're marvelous to watch, so fine tuned, so accurate and so unafraid. I don't want to deprive Cowboy fans of their fun.

It's true Allen traded away future draft choices for what seemed a good player. How is that unlike buying on credit or mortgaging your home? Don't feel put down. All it is is an alternative solution to a problem; the less alternatives you have, probably the less happy you'll be.

Jack Pardee seems to me to lead with mental football and hopefully some emotions later. If, like the Cowboys, he can organize his system, he can win. But, he's got too many of Allen's emotional first players and there's nobody around to turn them on. What's wrong with hiring an assistant coach who can inspire and lead the emotional types? What's wrong with being a bad sportsman sometimes and not shaking hands? Aren't you expressing your anger at losing and you try to get even by ignoring courtesy? Or, aren't you expressing contempt toward the loser because the name of the game is to one up the other team? Later you can say how well they played so as not to ruffle their feathers too much.