Skip Bayless's Dickish Breakdown Of Aaron Rodgers' Game-Winning Drive: 'Tom Brady Wouldn't Have To Resort To Plays Like This'
We already knew that Bayless is a contrarian dick who eats chicken and broccoli five times a week. You might not have known that Aaron Rodgers threw for 264 yards and three touchdowns yesterday in Green Bay's win at Miami.
On the game's final drive, Rodgers completed passes on 4th-and-10 (18 yards to Jordy Nelson), 3rd-and-10 (10 to James Starks), and even pretended to spike the ball before throwing to Davante Adams for a crucial play that set up the game-winning TD:
But if anybody can find a problem with a quarterback leading his team on a last-minute game-winning drive, on the road, including an ingenious fake spike, it's Bayless. Skip Bayless can find a problem with how you pulled him from the wreckage of a burning building, or how you poured coffee into your mug. It's his thing.
Watch as Bayless tries his best to discount everything Rodgers did on the final drive as either lucky, risky, dumb or the product of someone else's effort. It's an incredible display of dickishness that includes quotes like "[the fake spike was] as high risk -- maybe as dumb and risky play as you could attempt at this point with no timeouts left" and "Tom Brady wouldn't have to resort to plays like this." Because the Patriot Way is to only win by making sure the other team is ready for you to hike the ball? Because the only plays you should make in close games are those that are 100 percent guaranteed to work?
This whole rant was a stretch, even by Bayless' standards. Watch:
Sure, he fumbled. Sure, the fake spike was a risky play. He also led his team on two consecutive scoring drives (68 and 90 yards, respectively) to win the game. His teammates played well -- why is that a knock on Rodgers? Why is "freestyling" a bad thing when you have the talent and understanding of the game to do so? Why is throwing to a rookie (who has drawn a lot of targets and praise over the beginning of this season) on a big play a bad thing? There's just nothing here to support Bayless' claims.
As always, when you make Stephen A. Smith seem reasonable, you know you've gone too far. (Interestingly, the same thing happens when Smith makes Bayless seem reasonable.)