Is giving Conan Leno's old gig a good idea?

[bloggerdude2005]

NBC, in an effort to appease Conan, who was itching to bail out of his 12:30 job, gave him the Tonight Show gig, about as big as they come. But in the process they essentially dumped Leno (well, demoted him to a time slot- 10 pm- that has "doomed to fail" written all over it). Leno has consistently outperformed Letterman, who has a brand of humor much closer to Conan's. Think about that: if Leno beats Letterman, and Letterman is a lot like Conan, then it logically follows that Conan will not do as well as Leno. I understand 16 years at one job can get to be drudgery, but NBC is willing to mess up a great show- the Tonight Show with Jay Leno- just so they can keep a guy who, frankly, has been getting less and less funny over the years (I would say Conan peaked just around the time Andy Richter left in 2000). Conan was very funny from about 1996-2001. It was really Robert Smigel's show, not Conan's. Conan's stuff has become old hat and it is utterly inane now- unwatchable even. I think Conan leaving was not a bad idea. But giving him Leno's job is just awful. Why mess up a good thing like Leno? The fact that NBC gave Leno an entirely new show is proof they want him to stay. So why not keep him where he is, say buh bye to unfunny Conan, and have Jimmy Fallon step in Conan's shoes? Betetr to take a risk on Fallon at 12:30 then risk it all with the "new" Tonight Show. Common sense. And, frankly, Jeff Zucker really needs to get his pink slip. AT 52, the once wunderkind of the Katie Couric-era Today Show has proven he is a one man bankruptcy tempting machine. NBC has to get this guy out yesterday. NBC can't afford any more of his risky gambles. I mean seriously, his last great idea was 'Friends', and that was when, 1994?