Second Ryder Cup Question: Did Tiger's Absence Help?

Brian Murphy makes a compelling point:

But Tiger and the Ryder Cup, no matter what he says publicly, and no matter how supportive he is in the Team Room, are a weird mix. I always flash back to the moment in ‘04 at Oakland Hills when we were pressing Tiger on whether or not he cared about the Ryder Cup, and Tiger finally had enough and asked us: “How many majors has Jack Nicklaus won?” Dutifully, we all answered “18.” Tiger then asked, “And what’s his Ryder Cup record?” When we all sat there like dumbstruck sheep, unable to produce the answer, Tiger sat back, satisfied.

Team USA has now won as many Ryder Cups without Tiger (one) as it has with Tiger in five other Cups. Tiger was part of a losing team in 1997, 2002, ‘04 and ‘06, and while there are tons of reasons other than Tiger why they lost those Cups, I had a feeling that his absence would be important two ways.

One, it would allow Team USA to operate in a Tiger-free zone, not worrying about what he thinks or says, or having to answer any questions about him. His absence allowed rookies like Hunter Mahan, Anthony Kim and J.B. Holmes to play and act more naturally.

Azinger has said that a key moment in the week was the Thursday night pep rally in front of 4,000 that was supposed to only be attended by the Captain. Then the team decided to crash it and apparently bonded. I couldn't help but think that Tiger would not have wanted to attend because of the security issues and the desire to get his rest prior to a long day one.

But there's also this key point from Mike Adamson in The Guardian:

Likewise it is hard, albeit not impossible, to imagine the debutants Anthony Kim and Boo Weekley playing with such uninhibited personality were they in Woods's shadow. Although Azinger lost the world's best player, it is not too much of a stretch to suggest that his uplifting captaincy has also benefited from the absence of such an intimidating figure in the team room.

Think Tiger's absence helped?