Q: Who is more dominant in there respective sport, Tiger Woods or Tom Brady?

A: Eli Manning

Skip Bayless, Hack or Tool?

a few minutes ago I happened to walk past my TV which I had left ESPN's "First Take" on and was hit with the stupidest sports question I've ever heard, "Who is more dominant in there respective sport, Tiger Woods or Tom Brady?

YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING?


Even allowing for the usual amount of ESPN hyperbole and Pats ball washing that is ridiculous.

First of all you are comparing a individual sport to a team sport. Every single win of Tiger's is his alone. Brady doesn't do a single thing on the football field without the help of 10 teammates on offense and doesn't win a game without the help of 40-some teammates plus a large coaching staff. If Tiger has a bad day, he loses. If Brady gets outplayed by Chad Pennington (who wasn't even the starter for that game) or throws three picks in a playoff game his team still marches on towards 19-0.

Tiger Woods is in a class of his own. I don't even follow golf and I know that. Brady is great and an argument that he's the best in the game today can definitely be made, but he isn't in the same class of dominance as Tiger simply because you can make an argument that one of his contemporaries (Peyton) is better without being laughed out of the room. No one argues that Tiger isn't the best golfer around today, because he clearly is. Whether you think Tom Brady is the best or not, there is another QB in that discussion, making him nowhere near as dominant as Tiger Woods.

Donovan McNabb who was a guest on the show, answered Tiger without hesitation. Skip Bayless then took the side of Brady. The question is, is he a hack who took the opposite side, no matter how wrong simply to make an argument? Or is he a tool of unheard of proportions who actually believes that there is a bigger gap between Tom Brady and
Peyton Manning than between Tiger Woods and ?

ESPN Reporter told by source that Ferentz is staying, reporter can't pronounce Ferentz

I keep ESPN on in the background while I'm on the computer reading real sports news. This usually just makes me angry and wonder why I do it. Yesterday was just another one of those days.

Some ESPN reporter was on with a breaking report from his sources, saying Iowa Football Coach Kirk Ferentz is staying at Iowa (just like he does every year) instead of jumping to the NFL. That didn't surprise me and I was actually happy to have any irrational fear of Ferentz leaving put to rest by ESPN. Then the reporter kept talking, this guy who supposedly has sources that know what coach Ferentz is going to do with his career, mispronounced Ferentz. Ok, once is fine, he misspoke it happens. He continued and over and over said the name wrong. How does he not know how to say the name when he has "sources" telling him that the guy is staying. How does he talk to his source and then not learn how to pronounce the name. Did no one at ESPN listen to the reporter talk before he went on. Ferentz isn't some nobody, he's a coach of a BCS conference team and a yearly NFL coaching candidate.

Repeat after me ESPN reporter with "sources" FAIR-rents not fur-RINSE (said as one syllable)

Quarterback Intangibles

There is no phrase used in NFL analysis that pisses me off faster than "Intangibles". "This QB has great intangibles" what does that mean and how do you know? Normally people talking about intangibles ramble on about what a great person the QB is and how hard he works and how tough and competitive he is. Of course he's hardworking, tough and competitive, he's one of the an elite few that have reached the top of his profession in one of the purest meritocracies you'll ever find. A NFL QB is one of less than 100 of the best of the best, a starter is one of the top 32, a QB that is considered good or even great is one of only a handful of people out of billions that can play the position to it's fullest. No one reaches that level without being extraordinarily gifted, hardworking, tough and competitive.

If something is intangible by definition it can't be perceived, realized or defined. How can someone know that a QB has intangibles if they can't be perceived, realized or defined. Ignoring the misuse of the word and defining it by context I understand it to mean "things that aren't measured by statistics". I'm sure that somethings a QB does aren't defined in his statistics. The NFL doesn't keep a stat for competitiveness or hours of gamefilm study. They don't need to because all of those things help a QB play better and the QB's statistics will show the improvement. If a QB is liked and respected by his teammates and this makes them play harder wouldn't that mean the QB is able to complete more passes for more yards and throw more TDs. Most things sited as intangibles are part of what creates the tangibles (stats). Adding in those intangibles on top of the stats gives more credit on top of what those intangibles have accomplished. It makes as much sense as randomly picking QBs and saying their yards count double.

I'm sure there are subtle things that a QB does that improve his team that don't get measured in his statistics. Things that are noticed by people that are with them throughout the season and can sense the subtle positives that the QB contributes. I don't doubt that this happens, but how does a guy sitting watching the game see this, whether it's from the stands, the couch or Bristol Connecticut. Even if you do spend time with a QB in his locker room and pick up on his "intangibles" how do they compare them to the rest of the league. I've never heard of a ESPN intangibles specialist who just chills in every locker room in the league and senses which QBs have great intangibles (I call that job). Do they have an intangibles meter that they can walk around with or just hold up to the QB in question.

So what are the intangibles that sports analysis always talk about? They aren't measured by stats, but can be determined by just feel. How does that QB feel to you? Does he make you all warm and fuzzy inside?
That's the basis of intangibles. How the QB seems to you through the TV. When you look at the stats and watch his teams performance you just feel that the QB is better or worse than what the numbers tell you? Do you know what that's called? It's called personal bias.
"Those numbers can't be right. When I watch I see how great (or awful) he is. The stats disagree. There's obviously something missing here."
Yes, there is. It's called limited experience (you don't see every play) and selective perception (even if you do you don't remember all of them). You base your opinion on what you remember and the conclusions you reached from that (or on which plays you saw agree if the opinion you already have). When the stats disagree it's because they see everything and remember everything within that stats scope. Quarterback Intangibles is what analysis use to describe and allow them to include their personal biases, whether they realize it or not.