11/21/24
February 01, 2005
An error-filled exercise in selective memory: Cold Hard Football Facts issues a point-by-point deconstruction of last week's Skip Bayless column on ESPN.com s Page 2, which refuted the ida that Bill Belichick and Tom Brady are the greatest coach and quarterback in NFL history. "Quite frankly, we pissed our pants laughing when we looked at Bayless’s limp, flaccid and impotent arguments." And they agree with Bayless's conclusions. [via King Kaufman]
posted by kirkaracha to football at 07:01 PM - 18 comments
Great ass-whuppin'. Bayless is limp, perhaps limpest of all in his concluding sentence. Yuk yuk haw haw.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:36 PM on February 01, 2005
Ass. ASS! There, I said it.
posted by Samsonov14 at 09:43 PM on February 01, 2005
Great link, though. We're making New England clam chowder and Philly cheesesteaks this weekend. Should be fun to see if Brady can claim a spot among the greats. ass.
posted by Samsonov14 at 09:50 PM on February 01, 2005
*insert generic hating on Skip Bayless*
posted by billsaysthis at 10:20 PM on February 01, 2005
Dude, can I really say ASS on this FPP? ASS. Holy shit I can. Howard Stern made this possible. Thanks bro.
posted by smithnyiu at 10:20 PM on February 01, 2005
Belichick is a very good coach, and the way his players comment publicly, as well as how hard and consistent they are shows this. Too many people want to hold up the quarterback as great -when great isn't really a good term. I'd say it would take a few words like, "a good team player" orl, "a quarterback that has excellent hard working recievers." Brady, Roethlisberger, Montana, and other's wouldn't be any good without a good jumping, twisting, dodging receiver with good hands. Now the rest is up to the play calling and coaching staff.
posted by 911 at 11:14 PM on February 01, 2005
Well that's an endless loop of an argument: those receivers wouldn't be great without a QB who can get them the ball. Or could every QB drop that ball in Deion Branch's hands 60 yards away in such a manner that Branch didn't have to break stride?
posted by yerfatma at 06:58 AM on February 02, 2005
*insert less witty comment echoing billsaysthis*
posted by mbd1 at 08:00 AM on February 02, 2005
Anyone who doesn't recognize Brady's non-fumble against the Raiders as a lucky break is afflicted with homerism.
posted by rcade at 08:49 AM on February 02, 2005
rcade - I just don't see it as a "lucky break", simply because there is a specific rule set aside for that instance. The lucky break would be if there were no rule, the officials got it wrong and the Pats went on to win. However, there was a rule for it and the officials got it right. Also, spare the homer talk...I don't like the Patriots anymore then I like the Raiders, so I don't give a crap who would have won that game.
posted by bcb2k2 at 09:07 AM on February 02, 2005
It was a lucky break - not the rule, but the entire circumstance. But it didn't win him a championship, as I recall he showed up the following week and put a hurt on.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 09:41 AM on February 02, 2005
rcade, you seem to still feel like Brady is over-rated. I just don't see it. I don't think he's Joe Montana yet, but he's got a chance to be there. Plenty of people dismiss him as a product of the Pats system, but few people are winning games against him.
posted by yerfatma at 11:59 AM on February 02, 2005
I must be affected with New England homerism too. Which feels odd, as a Dolphins fan.
posted by Mr Bismarck at 12:00 PM on February 02, 2005
I'm curious: what makes it a "lucky break"? The cite in the article is meticulous, and seems to point out very clearly that it's an ironclad case of an incomplete pass. So when an incomplete pass is -- correctly -- not ruled a fumble, as happens in just about every game, do you call it a "lucky break"? addressed to all the "lucky breakers"
posted by lil_brown_bat at 05:51 PM on February 02, 2005
*insert even less witty comment echoing mbd1*
posted by billsaysthis at 06:32 PM on February 02, 2005
It's a lucky break because Brady made a game-altering sloppy play and an obscure rule -- which has since been revised -- saved him from utter doom. I don't think it takes away from what he did to get to that point or what he did after the break, but that Cold Hard Facts defense of the Tuck Rule is 100 percent homerism from a Boston writer. He (and lbb) sound like me defending Brett Hull's goal to win the Stanley Cup for Dallas. As for Brady being overrated, are you kidding? The guy's poised to win his third Super Bowl in four years. He's clearly a great quarterback, regardless of what I might have said before the Patriots schooled Peyton Manning again.
posted by rcade at 09:37 PM on February 02, 2005
The writer of this response calls Bayless "Skippy Boy" and "Nutless". He uses language that's much more juvenile and idiotic than Skip. Bayless is a moron, but ... Hello, kettle? This is the pot.
posted by wfrazerjr at 10:19 PM on February 03, 2005
Good article. I love it when another ESPN moron shows his a**. What's funny is, I remember when they were making Montana/Staubach and Montana/Bradshaw comparisons, saying he was good, but he wasn't great. Someday they will revere Brady the same way they kiss Montana's a** now.