Thursday, August 6, 2009

10 comments Joe & Peter: Not Gods Among Men

See what I did there? I did a sort of a play on Fred's post from Tuesday about Pedro Martinez. God, I am so creative. Weird things tend to happen when writers and analysts speak to the public directly and answer the public's questions. We see that today with a JoeChat and Peter King's MMQB-Tuesday mailbag.

Let's check out Joe Morgan's stance on the list of 103 names and his take on various other baseball related issues...and by "take" I mean "his attempts to avoid the question completely."

Buzzmaster (11:01 AM)

Hey everyone. Joe's running about 10 minutes late. So we'll get started around 11:10 a.m. ET.

Joe does a 30 minute chat once a week and he can't be on time for it. While Joe was running, I really hope he was not clogging up the bases.

When he finally arrives he has something he wants to say before the chat begins:

JM: I want to clarify my position on the 103 list of people who tested positive in 2003. I do not view all the players as suspects, because I do not know who's on the list. The only time I'm suspicious of players is when it's been called for suspicion. Because I don't konw who's on the list, I do not look at Ken Griffey Jr. and Derek Jeter and Jason Varitek and think they are suspects. I do not use the lack of knowledge of names on the 103 list to form my own list.

Joe is not forming his own list people. Got that? So don't even think of Derek Jeter, Ken Griffey Jr. or Jason Varitek as being on that list. There's no list that Joe has formed in his mind that includes players like Jim Thome or Brian Giles. They are NOT suspected. In fact, Joe gets angry when people try to implicate players like Ivan Rodriguez, Jorge Posada, Vladmir Guerrero, or even Tori Hunter on a list. Michael Young is not suspected by Joe either. I just hope we all understand Joe is NOT making a list of suspects, so players like Luis Gonzalez and Miguel Cabrera can rest easy.

Gary (Buckeye ,Az)

Joe, did you like the White Sox trade for Jake Peavey?

JM: I didn't until I realized that he's going to pitch until the end of this month. When I first thought that he was out for the season, I didn't think it was a good move.

(Joe at a real job in the real world)

(Joe's Boss): "Did you get the contracts signed to complete the merger last night?"

(Joe) "I didn't realize we were merging so quickly. When I read the email saying it was happening at the first of the month, I realized that was tomorrow and then I decided I needed to get the contracts signed."

(Joe's Boss) "So did you?"

(Joe) "I can't really speak to that because I wasn't there when the contracts were signed but they were faxed over by me."

(Joe's Boss) "Did you receive the fax back with a signed contract?"

(Joe) "I didn't realize I was getting the fax back so quickly, plus I was running 10 minutes late..."

(Joe's Boss) "You're fired. You know nothing about your job, go to HR and turn in your keys and authorization badge."

That's a long form way of saying Joe should know how long Peavy is out for.

Jack (Chicago)

Is Randy Wells the ROY in the NL if the season ended today?

JM: He has to be considered a candidate, because he could end up winning 12-13 games.

Even if he has an ERA of 4.78 and a WHIP of 1.45, he won 13 games, so he gets Joe's RoY vote. Let's give the award to another Chicago Cub because the whole Jerome Walton and Geovany Soto RoY award really worked out well for them in the long run (Fine, I know it is Rookie of the Year and not a career achievement award but still. I am not even including Ken Hubbs and Dwight Smith on this list of shitty Cubs RoY award winners, or runners up as the case is for Smith).

There haven't been a whole lot of impressive candidates this year, except maybe Colby Rasmus and Casey McGahee. I just don't want it decided by what pitcher has the most wins. That is just stupid.

He has been an excellent guy and is probably their No. 3 starter right now if they were start the playoffs right now, depending on the health of Dempster.

The criteria for Joe's RoY award is to have 13 wins and be a #3 starter. Jair Jurrjens should have won it last year then over the Cubs Rookie of One Year Geovany Soto. Yes, I am still bitter.

I am a little confused by this sentence the start of the playoffs depends on Ryan Dempster's health? Will they cancel the playoffs if he is not healthy?

Eric (Livingston)

Isn't it unfair to the players (ARod, Papi, Manny) that have already been outed to have everybody else's names remain secret?

JM: I think it's so unfair. It's unfair because you're putting those guys out there and the other guys are still being covered. Someone has an agenda here. There's a reason that only 7 names have been accused of being on the list. If they have the list, why havne't all the players been exposed?

Joe from earlier in the chat when asked if the list should be made public:

It can not become public because all the guys that were on the list were assured that their names wouldn't come up. If you do put that list out there, then you're not being fair to those guys. They didn't have the chance to appeal and say that maybe it was tainted. They didn't have a chance at a B sample like the Olympics. there should never have been names linked to the samples. The problem I have is they have released several names from the list. It's not fair to have those guys exposed and the others sheltered. I don't think it will work to have the list released.

One drawback of Joe's "talk a lot until everyone is confused" plan is that sometimes he openly contradicts himself.

Rob (Alexandria, VA)

Just when the Cubs learn to hit again, their bullpen seems to be struggling. Do you see B.J. Ryan making an impact on the team this year?

JM: I'm sure when they signed BJ Ryan, they had that in the back of their mind, that if he can get some innings in he could help them down the stretch.

I'm pretty sure when they signed B.J. Ryan they had in the absolute front part of their mind that they were signing this player so he could help the team this year in some capacity. If Joe thinks B.J. Ryan helping the team this year was in the back of the Cub's mind, what the hell did he think was in the forefront of their mind? Ryan's ability to do magic tricks in the dugout between innings?

The funny part is that B.J. Ryan was released by the Cubs Wednesday, so I guess he won't be much of a help down the stretch.

Edward (Nashville)

Who is going to be the "under the radar" team in the playoffs this year?

JM: I don't see anyone getting hot like the Rockies did a couple of years ago. But I do see some of the teams that are playing well now getting hot and maybe opening up a lead.

Not only did Joe completely not answer the question about "under the radar" teams but he also didn't answer the question he THOUGHT was posed with actual names of teams he thought would open up a lead in their division because they are playing well now. I am surprised anyone ever shows up for Joe's chats anymore.

Chris (Cincy)

Why are there no consistently great teams like your Reds teams of the 70's? Even the top teams this year (Yankees, Angels, Red Sox, Dodgers) seem to struggle with their consistency. What do you think is the cause of this?

There are still FJM baiters out there.

JM: You have good teams, not great teams. The weaknesses show up more. Any time that happens, you'll lose 3-4 in a row. When your strengths show, you win 5 in a row. That's why the good teams have stretches. The Yankees won 9 in a row, but then lost 3 straight in Chicago.

Why does Joe even get to interact with the public anymore? If the Yankees won 9 games and then lost 3 in a row that would give them a record on the season of 121-41, which if I am not wrong, would beat the previous MLB record of 116 games won in a 162 game season.

I would call that a great team, yet somehow Joe doesn't seem to agree. The lesson? Joe Morgan is an idiot and really should not be able to comment on baseball.

One thing to watch the rest of the way is whichever team can shorten their losing streaks, that team will win the division.

So the team that wins the most games will win the division? Just remember that tidbit of knowledge baseball fans and remember where you got it.

Here are some other thoughts by the great baseball analyst Joe Morgan from this chat:

(On why Matt Holliday is playing better in St. Louis)

Playing in Oakland was a downer for him, because you're playing on a team that doesn't excite you. It's a boring team to watch. They either strike out, walk or try to hit HRs. Jack Cust is a typical Oakland hitter. He either walks or hits home runs. It's just not an interesting team and that had an effect on Holliday.

Matt Holliday was simply bored playing in Oakland because the team only tried to hit home runs or walk. That's so boring to watch when a player strikes out, walks or tries to hit a home run. Many times Holliday fell asleep in the on-deck circle.

Plus the ball park is not easy to hit in.

I guess the fact he went from a ball park known for home runs in Colorado to a ball park known to be a pitchers park in Oakland or the fact he is in the same lineup as Albert Pujols now could have some effect on his numbers...nah, he was probably just bored by the way his teammates played baseball in Oakland, that makes much more sense.

(On who should be MVP)

I still think Prince Fielder and Braun are legit candidates if the Brewers can win the division.

Sorry Fielder and Braun, even if you hit .345 with 55 HR and 167 RBI's, if the Brewers doesn't win the division then you aren't as valuable as if you hit .295 with 35 HR and 121 RBI's according to Joe Morgan.

How does this man get to vote for ANYTHING related to baseball?

-Now for Peter King's attempt to interact with the public in his MMQB-Tuesday.

Sorry for the late column today, and a couple of notes before I get into one of my favorite people in the NFL, David Tyree.

His favorite person in the NFL? If you don't know the answer to this question, you need to. I'll give you a hint, he is not in the NFL this week, but he may be next week, or maybe not, but he is definitely not making a decision one way or another until all of the news cameras are there to cover it.

Thanks to the 50 to 60 folks who came out for the Tweetup last night at the minor-league baseball game in Troy, N.Y.,

This should be a lesson in demographics for Peter. 4 people from Los Angeles came to his Tweetup and 50 to 60 paid money to talk to Peter and go to a Tweetup in New York. East Coast football fans like Peter more than West Coast football fans...I wonder why that is?

David Tyree makes it clear he does not want sentimentality to play one iota of a part in his fate with the New York Giants this summer. Just because he made the most famous play in the history of the franchise, and probably the most incredible play in the history of the Super Bowl,

The most famous play in the history of the Super Bowl? This is a personal thing of course but I have to say my most famous play would be a choice of Kevin Dyson getting stopped on the one yard line, John Taylor catching the pass from Joe Montana with 16 seconds to go, Lynn Swann making that self tipped catch over a Dallas defender, or even Marcus Allen reversing field for a touchdown. I am sure there are others but I don't know if the Tyree play is the best ever. I am sure it is in some people's minds, but maybe not mine.

I find it shocking one of Peter's favorite players just happens to play for an upper Northeast football team.

The Giants took two receivers in the top 100 picks of the draft -- Hakeem Nicks (round one) and Ramses Barden (three). That duo, along with the standout of this year's offseason program, 2008 third-round receiver Mario Manningham, comprise what could be a formidable roadblock for Tyree. Maybe an insurmountable one.

I get tired of hearing myself talk about it but how many teams do you think Peter can name three receivers on the roster, much less which receiver performed the best in the offseason program? It doesn't stop there...

Add Eli Manning-favorite Steve Smith, with Domenik Hixon also a fairly sure thing for the final 53, and throw the perennially disappointing Sinorice Moss into the mix, and that's six receivers ahead of Tyree.

Peter has already broken down the entire depth chart for the Giants prior to his discussion with David Tyree. I do get tired of talking about this but there is no way Peter can do the same for many of the other teams not located close to the Northeast part of the United States. There is a reason he gets 4 people in Los Angeles to a Tweetup and 50 to 60 people in New York, besides the fact there is no football team in Los Angeles.

Remember the big surprise Peter had for you Texans fans? The one that consisted of him basically saying Matt Schaub expects Steve Slaton to have a good year? That's the type of coverage teams like the Texans get from Peter. The same man who just realized Andre Johnson is one of the top 3 receivers in the league at the end of last year can tell you the entire depth chart of other teams because he pays more attention to them.

It does so happen many of the Northeast teams are good but I can't help but complain about the disparity in coverage teams that aren't in Peter's immediate vicinity get.

I know everyone wants my opinion on Eli Manning's new contract. I have nothing against the Giants and my soon-to-be father-in-law is a diehard fan of the Giants, which really proves nothing but to say I would not rag on them for no reason, but I think that is a lot of money to pay up for Eli Manning. He's definitely an above average quarterback and the other option of not resigning him is not an option at all...but man that is a lot of money for Eli Manning. I know in a couple of years it won't look so bad and he may not see all of that money but it looks like a lot right now.

Let's go on to Peter's hate mail...

Nick Taylor of Montreal:

"Enjoy your column. I'm puzzled as to why you seem down on Tarvaris Jackson and his prospects this year. If I recall correctly, your advice to Childress about a year ago was to stick with him. Since then, Jackson must have been the most heavily criticized QB with a 95+ rating in NFL history. In fairness, stats don't tell the whole story: he was tentative at times, got benched, and played poorly in his first playoff game (but that was against an Eagles defense that made Eli Manning look just as bad the next week). Bottom line, the guy is a small-school product with a grand total of 19 starts under his belt, and he's probably still learning the West Coast offense. He's still unproven, sure, but it's way too early to suggest he doesn't belong. Why exactly would J.D. Booty leapfrog him on the depth chart?

Peter: Look, I'm just trying to read the tea leaves here.

This mail bag is designed for people to write in and tell me how great I am! How dare you write into my Tuesday mail bag and ask me a question in such a manner? Especially a question that is backed up with some sort of statistics and a well thought out argument.

You don't trade for a part-time starter and court Brett Favre through the offseason if you think Jackson's your long-term answer.

You do trade for a part-time starter and court Brett Favre if you are a coach that is about to lose his job if he doesn't have a good year and has to clinch a playoff spot or win a playoff game to keep his job. Way to think it all the way through Peter and see that it is partially about Tavaris Jackson's ability but mostly about Brad Childress' need to keep his job.

Glidjy Dupont of Cambria Heights, N.Y.:

"Peter, Why do NFL teams allow someone like Mike Shanahan to visit their summer camps while knowing fully they may face a Shanahan-coached team in the not too distant future (next year)?

There should be no problems for any team that has to face Shanahan next year as long as John Elway doesn't come out of retirement and decide to play for Shanahan. I am kidding...sort of.

Peter: I think it's respect for Shanahan, number one. Two: They can pick his brain about offense while he's in camp, and don't think Belichick won't do that tonight or tomorrow in Foxboro when Shanahan is there.

Every other coach will completely ignore Mike Shanahan and not ask him any questions, but not Bill Belichick, he is the only coach competent and smart enough to ask Shanahan any questions about the one thing Shanahan is good at, which is running an offense.

I like how in any example, Peter always uses Belichick as the example of the smart coach. Whether it is signing Vick for the Wildcat, being smart enough to know how to use Tim Tebow, or picking Mike Shanahan's mind, it is clear Peter King thinks Bill Belichick is WAY smarter than any other coaches in the NFL.

Chris of Philadelphia:

"Why can't we investigate Senator Mitchell? You can't tell me he couldn't find any prominent Boston players to put in his report, and all of a sudden, two of the biggest names in all of Red Sox history show up as positive tests? Please. This has Yankee witch hunt all over it. He needs to be investigated for wasting taxpayers dollars. This should not go unnoticed!''

Chris, my non-friend, you are a good example of why God hates the city of Philadelphia and wants you to suffer as a result. This is pure idiocy. So much in fact I am not entirely sure what Chris is getting at.

George Mitchell actually had small ties to the Red Sox organization, but I doubt he would have covered up the Red Sox player's involvement in the Mitchell if Chris is saying Mitchell intentionally did that and needs to be investigated, I don't know why he would be angry the Yankees are performing a "witch hunt."

I don't get why Chris would be angry at George Mitchell for not having any Red Sox in the Mitchell Report and then also be angry two Red Sox were just announced as having tested positive in 2003 and think it is a conspiracy.

Peter should not have published this letter. I know he wants to slip something in that is Red Sox oriented but this was a student question, especially since it wasn't a question.

Peter: Duly noted, and good point.

Of course Peter thinks it is.

From Spanky of Buchanan, Mich.:

Your need to twitter the story prompted in my mind a comparison to the long-gone generation that believed that it was more important to get your news from a source you trusted, even if it meant waiting until that trusted one confirmed the story. You should know that I would rather hear the story later from you than from the myriad of writers who put out erroneous information because they were in a hurry, because I know you won't compromise your integrity over immediacy. I know it's high praise indeed, but you could consider yourself the Walter Cronkite of sportswriters. You are our trusted voice.

Peter would never compromise his journalistic integrity by reporting erroneous stories. He will on the other hand shade stories about players the way they want to be seen, play favorites among teams, and make excuses for players because he is friends with them.

Anthony Grasso of Flanders, N.J.:

"Every single year we hear about team after team really getting along much better at this year's camp. I have followed football for over 45 years and I think it's honestly gotten to be more and more a game of attrition, so my thoughts would be to get through camp healthy, play very few starters in the abominations that have become exhibition games and pace yourselves. Thoughts? Who cares what people are eating or doing in a meeting anyway.

Apparently Anthony does not like Peter's weekly preseason puff pieces on teams that he calls "Training Camp Postcards."

The problem is that if there is information a fan wants about his team, he/she gets it daily from the local newspaper or beat writer for that team. Peter's "Postcard" is just an overview of the team from a national perspective, though Peter may get some more access in some fashion because he has the SI credential, if a fan wants real information about his team he/she doesn't get it from Peter King, he/she gets it from their local newspaper or beat writer. I find the "Training Camp Postcards" to be pretty useless as well.

Peter: So when I write Monday Morning Quarterback, for instance, I try to give you maybe 70 percent of football and 30 percent of ancillary or different stuff.

The problem is that much of his football "information" is actually ancillary or trite stuff. Maybe I am just being hard on Peter but many times during the season we get game recaps in MMQB from one certain player's perspective and the rest of the information in the MMQB tends to be trite and pretty unimportant because it deals with his travel aggravations/enjoyment or what non-brilliant thoughts he has about baseball. It gets worse during the offseason because Peter has to go searching for stories to talk about so I feel like we tend to get more ancillary stuff for the entire summer.

I don't know what I really expect from his columns but I never seem to get a great amount of useful information.

I hope people can skip over the stuff they don't like and read what they do.

If I did that, I wouldn't read the MMQB column.

-I wanted to add that Bill Simmons teased us on this Twitter with a "mega column" that was being put up on

This is the mega column. He also has 120 pictures with captions under each one. I am a reknown nitpicker but a short column and then 120 pictures with captions like people put up on social networking sites doesn't exactly scream "mega column" to me.


The Girl said...

I think the "Chis from Philadelphia" question referring to the Yankee witch hunt meant that the report itself was a Yankee witch hunt because Mitchell had ties to the Red Sox, and there were a number of Yankees players named in it, but no Red Sox.

That being said, it is still a poorly worded and pretty stupid question that seems to indicate that Chris from Philadelphia neither understood the process behind the Mitchell Report or the workings of the U.S. government. Multiple Yankee players were named because Brian McNamee, a former Yankee trainer, was one of the few sources willing to talk to Mitchell. Also, Mitchell is a *former* Senator who was appointed by Selig to do this investigation. It almost sounds like Chris thinks Mitchell is still a member of the Senate, and decided on a whim to use taxpayer money and 20 months of his time to write a report that would name a bunch of Yankee players in order to.... something.

It doesn't surprise me that a reader of Peter King would ask this kind of ill-informed question, or that Peter would think it was a "good point."

Bengoodfella said...

I am glad you cleared it up, I wasn't exactly sure what the heck he was trying to say. I don't think it was a Yankee witch hunt because of what you just said and there were already a couple of Yankees the public knew about, like Giambi and Clemens (I hope he doesn't sue me).

For one thing, it is pretty clear the Mitchell Report was not all inclusive and there are plenty of other MLB players who were using PEDs and just weren't named.

I think Chris just started writing and wasn't really thinking about what he was writing. There was no tax payer money involved, it was all MLB money. You got that right. What would the point of hunting the Yankees be anyway? It's not like the report just blindly named names, it had actual reports and evidence of usage, so if it was a Yankee witch hunt the players were probably guilty anyway.

I don't know how that question deserved to be in a mail bag. It reminded me of something you see in a comment section after an article. One of those comments I ignore because they are in all caps and have several misspellings.

That was not a good point...I don't even that qualifies as a "point" but more as speculation.

ivn said...

Ken Hubbs? whoa, let's lay off guys who died in plane crashes.

KentAllard said...

I don't have a comment this time. When I read the part of MMQBTE that mentioned Peter King could be the Walter Cronkite of sportswriters, I was struck blind, and can no longer read the interwebz.

AwesomeSean said...

Holy shit! A girl on BOTB? I must be certain my hair be combed before posting from here on out.

BGF...Tyree's play is best ever and Eli is underpaid. As your idol BS says, "I will not argue about this."

I love how Joe continues to lob bombs in BB's direction. He really never should have written "Moneyball."

Bengoodfella said...

If I have to lay off people then that is going to take a lot of the fun out of being an asshole. Plus, I sort of forgot he died in a plane crash. I knew at one time and conveniently forgot while writing this.

I know, I should not have ignored that part but to compare Walter Cronkite and Peter King is like comparing...well Walter Cronkite and Peter King. There is no comparison to be made. Obviously that person was kissing ass to get published.

Sean, I know there is a girl who reads this blog. Be sure to brush your teeth and wear a tie also before you post.

I don't know if Eli is underpaid but I have a feeling his contract won't look so bad in a few years. Still, Eli Manning got $97 million dollars...I am not knocking his ability to QB, it just sounds funny to me. Tyree's catch was a great one, I can't argue with that, and I know for Giants fans it is #1. For me, I will have to think about it. It's hard to compare all the great plays that have been made.

Yeah, he just thinks the A's strike out, walk, and hit home runs and that is just an absolutely horrible thing. Joe is going from not buying into the Moneyball philosophy or even believing any of it, to actually thinking playing baseball in a lineup with a GM who uses sabermetrics will make a player a worse baseball player.

I bet Joe Morgan does think Billy Beane wrote Moneyball and he is probably taking pride in the fact it doesn't seem to be working for him of late.

RuleBook said...

I don't like Eli Manning, and I don't think he's a top 10 QB. He gets so much credit because his defense won him a super bowl. The Patriots, with the highest scoring offense ever, were held to 14 points. If the defense doesn't shut down the Pats, Manning is nothing special. In addition to that, he threw a pass into Asante Samuel's chest on the play before the Tyree play. If the normally sure-handed Asante Samuel doesn't get a case of the dropsies, Manning is Jake Delhomme (sorry, Ben, best comparison I could come up with). Honestly, that's how I view Eli Manning. He's Jake Delhomme if Kasay doesn't kick the ball out of bounds. I can't see what anybody sees to make them think Manning is anything but an above average QB.

That being said, I would make an argument that the Tyree catch was the greatest play in Super Bowl history because it had 3 key components

1) The situation under which the play occured (team down by 4, inside 2 minutes)

2) The Eli Manning escape from what was a certain sack

3) The amazing (though lucky) Tyree catch

Among the plays you mentioned, only John Taylor and Kevin Dyson were at the crucial point in the game. Prior to Super Bowl XLII, I would have actually referred to the McNair escape on the play prior to Dyson being tackled as the best play, as it was a spectacular escape, and it was in a crucial point of the game.

However, in my opinion, the combination of situation, the escape, and the catch - the fact that the play had multiple amazing elements - is why I would consider it to be the best.

Bengoodfella said...

Anytime a quarterback leads a fourth quarter comeback against a team in the Super Bowl, he gets a lot of credit. I would credit the Giants defense for that win mostly. Now that you have broken it down Simmons-style like that (sorry that's what you get for insulting Jake Delhomme...though if it were Jake he would have fired 5 passes right at the Patriots), it's a pretty persuasive argument because that play did contain Manning's escape of a sack, which I thought was about as amazing as the catch.

I can see an argument for that being greatest Super Bowl play ever. If McNair's scramble had led to Dyson's catch on the same play, I think that would be the winner...but since it wasn't you actually may have a point. The John Taylor catch wasn't really dramatic but more of an ending to a great drive I guess.

RuleBook said...

Ouch, that Simmons shot hurt. Though I imagine it was mostly in jest, let me clarify my statement.

I was not attempting to insult Jake Delhomme, I was merely talking about perception versus reality. I think skill level between Eli Manning and Jake Delhomme is fairly equal (if you consider that an insult to Delhomme, than you support my point on Manning not being a great QB).

I agree that any QB that leads his team to a comeback in the 4th quarter should get a lot of credit. However, if you recall (and I know you do), Delhomme led his team to a TD to tie the game on the last Panthers offensive drive. Essentially, he and Manning did the same thing at the end, and they both deserve credit for it.

My whole point is that if Asante Samuel catches that pass, or if the helmet catch doesn't happen, Manning is considered only an above average QB, just like Delhomme is considered. On the flip side, if Kasay doesn't kick the ball out of bounds, and the Panthers win in OT, Delhomme would have immediately shot up the QB ranks.

I guess my entire beef is with the fact that if one play goes differently, nobody considers Manning a top QB. If a QB's reputation can swing so much on a single play, then he should not be considered a top QB.

Bengoodfella said...

I was kidding. No need to clarify. I am not a huge Jake fan but I am used to him getting little respect. SI has him in their QB rankings as behind Sage Rosenfels, who may not even be a starter in the NFL this year. He's not great, there is no doubt about that but I don't know if he is that bad.

Manning is better than Delhomme in my opinion. The reason he is so great in the 4th quarter is that the team LOVES him, Steve Smith is even better in the 4th quarter, and he's at his best in hurry up situations for some reason.

You do make a great point that Manning would be seen as average if Samuel makes that catch and Delhomme would be a Super Bowl winning QB who out threw Brady if Kasay does his job well. It didn't happen though...You don't have to defend your point because I see what you are saying.

You actually did persuade me with that argument and I am thinking the Tyree play was pretty special when you factor everything in together. If one play can define the difference in a good and great QB, then that QB is probably not great. I can agree with that. When it comes to 2-3 plays that are different, then I think it is less chance and more skill that made the difference on the play. I don't disagree with you.