Skip Bayless Must Be Stopped
- "[F]or the first time, the Super Bowl features two underdogs, two Cinderellas, two teams that came from nowhere on destiny-kissed rolls."
Really, Skip? The Seahawks, who finished 13-3 and secured the #1 seed in the NFC, are an underdog? Do you have any idea what underdog means? And the Steelers, who went 15-1 last year and who went into an improbable mid-season funk this year because Tommy Maddox was prominently involved, came from nowhere? Skip, do you even follow the NFL? (Also, is this really "the first time" this has happened in the 40-year history of the Super Bowl?)
- "But would they have won their first playoff game, in Cincinnati, if Bengals quarterback Carson Palmer hadn't been hurt on his second play? Doubtful. Would they have finished off the season's most shocking upset, in Indianapolis, if Colts cornerback Nick Harper hadn't weaved back into a sprawling ankle tackle by Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger? No. Would the Steelers have been able to win in Foxborough if the Broncos hadn't upset the Patriots the week before in Denver? Highly doubtful. Would the Steelers have won in Denver if an early poor pass by Roethlisberger had been picked off in the flat by Champ Bailey and returned for a stadium-rocking touchdown? Probably not."
Ok, so now it's "doubtful" that the Steelers would've beaten Cincinnati if Carson Palmer had played. I can accept "questionable" (since really, no one knows). But doubtful? Skip must be clairvoyant. Also, is it really "highly doubtful" that the Steelers would have beaten the Patriots if the Broncos didn't? Let's see, the Broncos decisively defeated the Patriots (twice, in fact), and then the Steelers decisively defeated the Broncos, so that must mean the Patriots would have most likely beaten the Steelers. That makes perfect fucking sense Skip, thanks for clearing that up for me.
And since we're playing the game of hypotheticals: If Tom Brady's fumble was correctly ruled a fumble instead of an incomplete pass in the infamous "tuck rule" game, no one's talking about a "Belichick-Brady dynasty."
In sum, it's unconscionable that Skip Bayless has a column on a web site sponsored by the so-called "worldwide leader in sports." His senseless diatribes are tantamount to a crime against the English language. As a writer, it's OK to be contrarian, but only if the contrarian perspective has some validity. Skip's positions are hardly ever valid (and if they are, they're almost never well-reasoned or well-articulated). He needs to be silenced.