Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Combating Idiocy yet again
I have said it before, and I’ll no doubt say it again, ESPN.com sucks. Since my last rant, they have only gotten worse by adding Skip Bayless as a regular page 2 columnist. Bayless likes to take a popular sentiment and argue the opposite no matter the evidence to the contrary. I have taken to the habit of ignoring his columns, but was pointed in the direction of his latest offering by fellow blogmates. In his latest piece, Bayless tries to quash the Brady-Belichick hype by claiming Brady is not as good as Joe Montana and Belichick is not as good a coach as Bill Parcells.
Bayless’ “evidence,” against Brady ranges from the overdone to the ludicrously hilarious. He begins with the overdone, bringing up the Tuck Rule of all things. Aren’t we over this now? Yes our team got a break, even though the rule was interpreted correctly. Teams get breaks all the time. More importantly, teams have to capitalize on their chances. A lucky call against the Raiders didn’t guarantee our winning that game, or winning the next game in Pittsburgh or the Super Bowl against the Rams. It certainly had little effect on our 2003 season. Regardless I am uncertain what a ref’s call has to do with evaluating Tom Brady versus Joe Montana.
Bayless then moves on to the ludicrous. He somehow argues that since the Patriots were only able to beat the Rams by kicking a last second 48 yard field goal, Brady doesn’t deserve as much credit as he’s getting. The second largest upset in Super Bowl history isn’t enough for Skip: he demands game winning field goals of 40 yards or less!
Skip then decides to be selective in his evidence, reminding us that Brady threw a crucial end zone interception in last year’s Super Bowl against Carolina that kept the Panthers in the game. Skip has chosen to neglect mentioning the rest of the game, where Brady put together a performance that was rated by ESPN.com and Football Outsiders’ (the NFL’s Baseball Prospectus,) Aaron Schatz as the greatest performance by any QB in Super Bowl history. Isn’t it annoying how facts and evidence ruin a good straw man?
With regards to the Belichick-Parcells comparison, Bayless provides little evidence, mostly because there isn’t much there. He brings up Belichick’s record in Cleveland. He attempts to give credit for the Patriots’ success to Charlie Weis (since we’ve been such an offensive juggernaut and defensively average over the last four years.) He points out the Parcells has turned around four franchises while Belichick only has done it once.
A fair and balanced look at these two matchups would rightly conclude that Brady is no Joe Montana. Brady's still a great quarterback, even if he loses on Sunday. Montana, however, has four rings, a decade of dominance, regular season MVPs, more Pro Bowl appearances, better numbers, the old QB rating record and a stellar playoff resume. Brady is in his fifth year. Give him time to reach his peak before we evaluate his career in total. Bayless easily could have made his point by bringing up these points rather than focusing on idiotic minutia that can be easily disregarded as conjecture.
As for Belichick versus Parcells, a fair and balanced observer would have to rate them equals at this point, especially if the Patriots are able to come through on Sunday. Parcells is by no means the perfect coach, while he can turn a team around quickly, his coaching tenures have been marred by ordinary seasons in the middle of strong playoff runs. The 6-10 1995 Pats are an example, as are the 8-8 1999 Jets and this year’s Cowboys. Parcells has an aura and personality that Belichick lacks, but auras don’t win you football games. Plus Parcells has never presided over a team that dominated competition for two years the way the 2003-4 Pats have up to this point. Parcells also has worn out his welcome quite quickly in his last two stops on the coaching carousel. Plus he spent the week before the Pats-Packers Super Bowl negotiating his next contract with the Jets. What a fucking dick.
ESPN you have sucked yet again. I therefore encourage all readers of this blog to not read Skip Bayless at any time. Look something up on Wikipedia instead and learn something useful.
Bayless’ “evidence,” against Brady ranges from the overdone to the ludicrously hilarious. He begins with the overdone, bringing up the Tuck Rule of all things. Aren’t we over this now? Yes our team got a break, even though the rule was interpreted correctly. Teams get breaks all the time. More importantly, teams have to capitalize on their chances. A lucky call against the Raiders didn’t guarantee our winning that game, or winning the next game in Pittsburgh or the Super Bowl against the Rams. It certainly had little effect on our 2003 season. Regardless I am uncertain what a ref’s call has to do with evaluating Tom Brady versus Joe Montana.
Bayless then moves on to the ludicrous. He somehow argues that since the Patriots were only able to beat the Rams by kicking a last second 48 yard field goal, Brady doesn’t deserve as much credit as he’s getting. The second largest upset in Super Bowl history isn’t enough for Skip: he demands game winning field goals of 40 yards or less!
Skip then decides to be selective in his evidence, reminding us that Brady threw a crucial end zone interception in last year’s Super Bowl against Carolina that kept the Panthers in the game. Skip has chosen to neglect mentioning the rest of the game, where Brady put together a performance that was rated by ESPN.com and Football Outsiders’ (the NFL’s Baseball Prospectus,) Aaron Schatz as the greatest performance by any QB in Super Bowl history. Isn’t it annoying how facts and evidence ruin a good straw man?
With regards to the Belichick-Parcells comparison, Bayless provides little evidence, mostly because there isn’t much there. He brings up Belichick’s record in Cleveland. He attempts to give credit for the Patriots’ success to Charlie Weis (since we’ve been such an offensive juggernaut and defensively average over the last four years.) He points out the Parcells has turned around four franchises while Belichick only has done it once.
A fair and balanced look at these two matchups would rightly conclude that Brady is no Joe Montana. Brady's still a great quarterback, even if he loses on Sunday. Montana, however, has four rings, a decade of dominance, regular season MVPs, more Pro Bowl appearances, better numbers, the old QB rating record and a stellar playoff resume. Brady is in his fifth year. Give him time to reach his peak before we evaluate his career in total. Bayless easily could have made his point by bringing up these points rather than focusing on idiotic minutia that can be easily disregarded as conjecture.
As for Belichick versus Parcells, a fair and balanced observer would have to rate them equals at this point, especially if the Patriots are able to come through on Sunday. Parcells is by no means the perfect coach, while he can turn a team around quickly, his coaching tenures have been marred by ordinary seasons in the middle of strong playoff runs. The 6-10 1995 Pats are an example, as are the 8-8 1999 Jets and this year’s Cowboys. Parcells has an aura and personality that Belichick lacks, but auras don’t win you football games. Plus Parcells has never presided over a team that dominated competition for two years the way the 2003-4 Pats have up to this point. Parcells also has worn out his welcome quite quickly in his last two stops on the coaching carousel. Plus he spent the week before the Pats-Packers Super Bowl negotiating his next contract with the Jets. What a fucking dick.
ESPN you have sucked yet again. I therefore encourage all readers of this blog to not read Skip Bayless at any time. Look something up on Wikipedia instead and learn something useful.
# posted by Marmaniac @ 11:42 AM 
