A response to a friend:
I want to make a few comments to show you that what I said would happen regarding the bears did happen. When the bears got Cutler, I told you how Ted Thompson not only cost the Packers two Super Bowl wins by forcing out Favre, but he also was responsible for Cutler going to the bears and not the Browns. I also said that since Cutler was now on the bears, they would be able to attract good free agents, since others would want to play with him. Peppers, Taylor, and the Charger tight end are examples of this. So is Mike Martz. People didn’t factor this in when they talked about how much the bears gave up for Cutler, while I said they gave up almost nothing compared to what they got. I also said that giving up the draft picks was extremely smart, and I would have given 5 first-rounders for Cutler. I said the bears could take the money that would have been devoted to those picks and sign very-good free agents that are proven, vs. drafting someone, paying them a lot, and hoping they are good (even ignoring the bears’ terrible track record here). Again, this is exactly what happened. Would you rather have Cutler, Peppers, Taylor, Martz, etc., or two first-round (and I think a third-round) picks? It’s not even close!!! Ted Thompson strikes again! Again, nobody ever talked about these points, but they were obvious to me from day one. As I said, I do agree with most things Thompson has done and he is doing a great job of building a good team, but he cost them the two championships with Favre.
You “accuse” me of inventing momentum to provide reasons, so I will “accuse” you of ignoring reasons and just looking at final scores (details below). In addition, it doesn’t matter to you that one team beats another on the field, but can’t overcome terrible calls (such as the Vikings-Saints, details below).
Did the Sox do some great things in 2005? Of course. That doesn’t change the fact that the umps made terrible call after terrible call to give the Sox game- and series-changing games and momentum. Borderline calls? That’s a laugh. The catcher’s interference in the Angel game was blatant. Running inside the baseline was blatant. I could go on and on. Yes, you can say the Josh Paul call and the Damon call were borderline, but an opposing manager with nothing on the line said Paul did the right thing because he caught the ball and the Sun-Times sports editor said Damon didn’t swing. The point is that all the calls WERE BAD, and they all went for the Sox, borderline or not, giving them games, confidence, and momentum, as well as frustrating the opponents. Yes, the Sox got a bad call in the Astro series, but it was far too late in the playoffs to matter after the damage had been done. Yes, the Astros made the World Series, but that doesn’t make them the best NL team. In addition, the Astro players outplayed the Sox players, and only lost because of Garner’s idiotic moves. So, you can legitimately say the Sox beat the Astros, as the manager is part of the team, but to say they are a better team isn’t correct. I have all those games on tape, and if we watched them, I’d point out all the things I said IN ADVANCE (with witnesses) that Garner should do, but wouldn’t, and it would backfire. I watched Game 1 at a friend’s house, who is a Sox fan, and he had a lot of Sox fans there. They were “amazed” that I was saying these things in advance and they all played out the way I said they would. It’s common sense, but Garner didn’t have it, and that’s why the Sox won. If Phil Jackson holds out Michael Jordan in a Game 7 of the playoffs and the other team wins, they did win legitimately, but they only won because the Bulls’ coach had terrible strategy. That’s the same situation here.
If you don’t think momentum plays a big part in sports, then we’ll always disagree. You know that if the Josh Paul call wasn’t made, it’s 50/50 the Sox go to California for 3 games, down 2-0. The Sox had scored one run to that point, and it was in the first inning on a one-hopper back to the pitcher, who threw it over the first-baseman’s head into the stands. If they go to California down 2-0, the series is over. I didn’t call the Sox’ 11-1 playoff run a fluke, I called it ump-aided. If they make the right call on the Damon non-swing, that series is completely changed and so is the 11-1 playoff record you talk about.
The Bartman play was the correct call in that situation and was borderline? I now see what you call borderline, so that explains why you think the calls for the Sox were borderline. The call was blatantly wrong, as every picture of the play and video clearly shows. So, when a bad call is made FOR your team, it’s the correct call in that situation? The fact is this. The rule is that if a fan reaches over the metal railing to touch a ball, it is fan interference. Pictures clearly show Bartman well over the railing when he touched the ball. Alou was there with his glove straight up, where the ball was coming down. I sat in the Bartman seat and looked at the wall, and when the ball is inside the railing where Bartman touched it, it is definitely playable. Does it matter if Florida fans are upset because a Cub fan touched the ball and they called it an out? It would have been an out if not for that, and the correct call was fan interference. If I go to a Packer-bear game and wear a bear jersey so it looks like I’m a bear fan, and I run on the field and tackle a bear player running for a TD, should the refs not call it a TD because I’m supposedly a bear fan and Packer fans would be upset?
The bears were the best NFC team in 2006? That’s also a laugh. Seattle beats them in Chicago if Shaun Alexander doesn’t run into his own guy on 4th-and-1, if Seattle watched a gamefilm and realized that Grossman throws bombs on first down, etc. And, the Saints did beat the bears in Chicago the next week. The refs blatantly stole that game, which was I believe a 5-point game in the 4th quarter, and I would be happy to watch the tape with you and show you all the bad calls. In the meantime, Favre won his 9th Super Bowl this year, and you clearly saw how the refs stole it from him. The fact that you say Tarvaris Jackson could have had the success Favre had is beyond ridiculous! He quarterbacked the team the previous years and they went nowhere, despite having a healthy Antoine Winfield and E.J. Henderson (2 All-Pro defenders and keys to the defense), which Favre didn’t have. Favre was the league MVP until Childress decided to run for 4 games, and had the highest QB rating (finishing second). So, please explain how Jackson, who was terrible and never took the team anywhere, becomes the league MVP.
Favre has a history of making bad plays at the end of games dozens of times? I talked about 4 situations and explained them in detail, so I’d like to know about the others. Favre has won far more games at the end than he’s lost. As I said, I can point out playoff games where Brady had three interceptions, Manning had 4, etc., but everyone comes down on Favre. And you say the media is biased for him! He said the other night that he wasn’t even sure he could have run, as both of his legs were killing him. Despite that, in the 4th quarter, he engineered 3 drives–the first to the Saints’ 10, where Berrian fumbled/the second for a TD/the third into possible winning-FG range, before a stupid penalty moved them back. Who is talking about this great play under pressure while injured THE ENTIRE FOURTH QUARTER? Favre also played better throughout the playoffs than every other playoff quarterback. Favre outplayed Brees the entire game–where’s the criticism of Brees? You ignore all the great things Favre did to win the game all game, but was sabotaged by others’ mistakes. You also ignore the fact that the refs blatantly stole the game from the Vikings. You ignore the fact that the Vikings threw on first downs their first two drives, scored TDs both times, and then ran on first and second down on the third drive and punted. That’s Favre’s fault? Why are people blaming Favre and not the fumblers (all game), the coaches (all game), etc. They ignore Favre’s great game, look at one play, and say it’s his fault. Another instance of you looking at the result in the newspaper instead of what happened during the game.
Here’s another example of you looking at the final result only, which I’ve told you before. You say Buehrle’s game was more dominant than Wood’s, because Wood gave up a debatable infield hit and Buehrle didn’t give up any hits. My response to you is that if the centerfielder doesn’t make that great catch and Buehrle gives up a homerun, you probably say Wood’s game was more dominant since they both gave up a hit. However, although you will probably change who you say is more dominant, neither of them pitched any differently! How can you determine who was more dominant based on a defensive play? The pitching is the pitching. That’s why I look at what happened, and not just the result in the papers.
Here’s an example of someone else doing this! After the U.S. beat the Canadians 5-3 in the early rounds of Olympic Hockey, one of the commentators said that the U.S. really came to play. He obviously didn’t watch the game, and just looked at the result, seeing the U.S. victory. Came to play? The U.S. was outshot 45-23, the majority of the game was played in the U.S. zone, and it looked for most of the game that the Canadians were on the power play even though they weren’t. It was great goaltending that allowed the U.S. to win (really 4-3, as the 5th goal was empty-net), not that the U.S. “came to play.” The U.S. was thoroughly dominated.
Further response:
I agree injuries are part of the game and don’t change who wins, as a bad call would. However, it does taint the victory. If Favre would have been injured early in the Saints game and the Saints won, it would have been a legitimate win, but no one would have known who would have won had he been healthy (assuming other injuries on both sides balanced out). Bad managing is also part of the team and doesn’t change who wins. However, that doesn’t mean you can’t debate things. I can say the Vikings deserved to lose 2 of the 3 losses when they lost 3 of 4 at the end of the season (the bear game was stolen) because Childress had terrible gameplans, but that doesn’t change the fact they would have won those games had he not tried to run. You say the 1996 Patriots were not deserving, but ignore the fact that there were about 3 AFC teams far superior to the 1986 Patriots. Yes, Lovie is not a good strategic coach, but Seattle had a better team that year, and would have won if not for Holmgren’s bad gameplan and Shaun Alexander’s 4th-and-1. The bears might have been better with another coach, but Seattle was better. Regarding the New Orleans game, again, all you’re looking at is the final score. You refuse to consider what led up to it. The fact of the matter is that it was a 5-point game in the 4th quarter, and there were a number of major, game-changing, key terrible calls prior to that that prevented the Saints from having a nice lead. I have the tape of this game, too, and would be happy to show you. It was blatant! If the Saints had a nice lead in the 4th quarter, do you really think the Grossman-led bears would have been able to come back? The Saints’ offense would also have been playing with more confidence, as they would have been scoring.
How many pictures of Bartman reaching over the piping would you like me to send you? That is the rule. You can also see Alou’s glove up and in the field of play, and although he could have reached closer to the wall, he didn’t, as the ball was coming down where his glove was. It was clear fan interference by the rules, and it wasn’t called. It doesn’t matter whether the fan was a Cub fan or any other fan, a rule is a rule. And for you to say that had they made the call, the Marlins would have had a “beef-for-the-ages” when the call can clearly be shown to be correct, but the Cubs don’t have a “beef-for-the-ages” when the call can clearly be shown to be wrong is amazing. You also point out logic that I’ve always disliked about sports, which is that calls should change at the end of the game when the game is on the line. In other words, pass interference or holding might be called in the first quarter, but the same thing won’t be called at the end of the game. I have always been against this, as a penalty is a penalty, regardless of when it was committed. People forget that games can be won and lost in the first quarter or first inning, too. If the rules were to be changed due to the Jeffrey Maier play, then the league should announce that fan interference will no longer be called in the playoffs when it happens against the home team. Let’s be honest upfront if we want to make bad calls a part of the game.