What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Bill Simmons has gone off the deep end. *Update at Post 61* (1 Viewer)

Back in the day, I would love going to ESPN during my lunch hour and a half, and see a new Simmons article posted. He was funny--I mean laugh out loud funny back then.

In the last several years, he just is boring and repeats the same things over and over. I don't know, maybe it is like that indie band that you really like and then they have 1-2 songs that get radio play and become successful and everyone likes them and then you feel like a tool for liking them and actually begin to hate them.

I am starting to get that way with him. At least his wife is funny.
:) She's pretty damn funny. I agree.

I like Simmons and I take him for what he is - an entertainment writer who writes about sports. What I dislike is the constant Boston references in everything he writes. He's a Celtics/Sox/Patriots fan. I get it. He loves those teams. I get it. But I don't need to read about them all the time. If I wanted that, I'd pick up a Boston newspaper. The Boston stuff just gets old and it lowers the quality of his work because he is talented and clearly can do better than just leaning on that a lot of the time.

 
[icon] said:
cobalt_27 said:
Ghost Rider said:
No one takes Simmons seriously, except those up in the Boston area, so why let his latest bit of verbal diarrhea bother you?
Simmons is ridiculously good. It's your loss if you don't get that.
:bag: He's a riot. He doesn't take himself too seriously either. Yes.. he's a massive homer. This is well known. If you know that going into the article, why do you get mad when you "realize" he's a homer? :bag:Read it for the entertainment value. Reading Simmons and getting upset because he doesn't enlighten you is like watching The Firm then getting pissed off that you aren't able to pass the Bar. Enjoy the ride... don't take everything so seriously.
Exactly. Not a Patriots homer. In fact the Pats beat my Rams in the SB, but I think this guy is funny. I enjoyed the column and agree we should move on. But the Commish dropped the ball on this by not giving more of a punishment. No way an Asst coach gets 5 games for HGH and a head coach gets a fine and the team loses a pick or two (when they have extras in each round of picks they would lose) and no suspension. I think this requesting of further tapes is a way for Goodell to cover his butt by handing down a more sever penalty and maybe we can put this to bed....
 
Simmons is pure entertainment.

He's a homer and he's fun to read.

IMO, it's a lot better than pretending to be a serious journalist while completely distorting facts to promote your hidden agenda.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not that I expect it to be posted, but I e-mailed him the following:

I was proud to see your comparison in your column about Belichick to 9/11 and the Iraq war. Surely the author of "Now I Can Die in Peace", a book about a sports team winning 11 games in October, isn't a homer when his team is in the news for something bad. Your new perspective must represent a more mature Bill Simmons. I anxiously await your column following Kevin Garnett's first 40-20 game for the Celtics, where you write: "I'd love to tell you how excited I am and how dominant KG is, but I'm just way too bummed about the millions that have been killed, raped and driven from their homes in Darfur."
 
Not that I expect it to be posted, but I e-mailed him the following:

I was proud to see your comparison in your column about Belichick to 9/11 and the Iraq war. Surely the author of "Now I Can Die in Peace", a book about a sports team winning 11 games in October, isn't a homer when his team is in the news for something bad. Your new perspective must represent a more mature Bill Simmons. I anxiously await your column following Kevin Garnett's first 40-20 game for the Celtics, where you write: "I'd love to tell you how excited I am and how dominant KG is, but I'm just way too bummed about the millions that have been killed, raped and driven from their homes in Darfur."
Wow. Oh Billy is going to pay dearly for this one, isn't he?ETA: To be fair, is it really accurate to accuse him of making these "comparisons," or is it more accurate to say that he's pointing out the infuriating fact that people get so riled up and passionate about cameragate, but aren't generating that same passion to events in real life that really matter?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not that I expect it to be posted, but I e-mailed him the following:

I was proud to see your comparison in your column about Belichick to 9/11 and the Iraq war. Surely the author of "Now I Can Die in Peace", a book about a sports team winning 11 games in October, isn't a homer when his team is in the news for something bad. Your new perspective must represent a more mature Bill Simmons. I anxiously await your column following Kevin Garnett's first 40-20 game for the Celtics, where you write: "I'd love to tell you how excited I am and how dominant KG is, but I'm just way too bummed about the millions that have been killed, raped and driven from their homes in Darfur."
Wow. Oh Billy is going to pay dearly for this one, isn't he?
I like Simmons, but his "sports isn't a big deal" when the Pats get busted is one of the more pathetic things I've seen a columnist write in a long time.
 
Not that I expect it to be posted, but I e-mailed him the following:

I was proud to see your comparison in your column about Belichick to 9/11 and the Iraq war. Surely the author of "Now I Can Die in Peace", a book about a sports team winning 11 games in October, isn't a homer when his team is in the news for something bad. Your new perspective must represent a more mature Bill Simmons. I anxiously await your column following Kevin Garnett's first 40-20 game for the Celtics, where you write: "I'd love to tell you how excited I am and how dominant KG is, but I'm just way too bummed about the millions that have been killed, raped and driven from their homes in Darfur."
Wow. Oh Billy is going to pay dearly for this one, isn't he?
I like Simmons, but his "sports isn't a big deal" when the Pats get busted is one of the more pathetic things I've seen a columnist write in a long time.
Talk about missing the point. Someone did something stupid, got caught, and will pay the price (argue the reasonableness of the punishment somewhere else). The story is over; let's move on. That's his point. This keeps getting press, took away from a match-up of SB contenders because the commentators felt like discussing a concluded issue for 3 hours, it will take away from looking ahead at Week 3 match-ups, and will take away from those games too. Why do we still need to discuss this? That's where his "it's just a game" comes into play. Can't we just sit there and enjoy these games without hearing hours of people repeating the same crap we've heard a million times?
 
Not that I expect it to be posted, but I e-mailed him the following:

I was proud to see your comparison in your column about Belichick to 9/11 and the Iraq war. Surely the author of "Now I Can Die in Peace", a book about a sports team winning 11 games in October, isn't a homer when his team is in the news for something bad. Your new perspective must represent a more mature Bill Simmons. I anxiously await your column following Kevin Garnett's first 40-20 game for the Celtics, where you write: "I'd love to tell you how excited I am and how dominant KG is, but I'm just way too bummed about the millions that have been killed, raped and driven from their homes in Darfur."
Wow. Oh Billy is going to pay dearly for this one, isn't he?
I like Simmons, but his "sports isn't a big deal" when the Pats get busted is one of the more pathetic things I've seen a columnist write in a long time.
I agree. Honestly, as I feel with a lot of Billy's stuff, I thought it was fabulously-written rant, but I disagreed with a lot of points he was making (or trying to make).
 
Not that I expect it to be posted, but I e-mailed him the following:

I was proud to see your comparison in your column about Belichick to 9/11 and the Iraq war. Surely the author of "Now I Can Die in Peace", a book about a sports team winning 11 games in October, isn't a homer when his team is in the news for something bad. Your new perspective must represent a more mature Bill Simmons. I anxiously await your column following Kevin Garnett's first 40-20 game for the Celtics, where you write: "I'd love to tell you how excited I am and how dominant KG is, but I'm just way too bummed about the millions that have been killed, raped and driven from their homes in Darfur."
Wow. Oh Billy is going to pay dearly for this one, isn't he?
I like Simmons, but his "sports isn't a big deal" when the Pats get busted is one of the more pathetic things I've seen a columnist write in a long time.
Talk about missing the point. Someone did something stupid, got caught, and will pay the price (argue the reasonableness of the punishment somewhere else). The story is over; let's move on. That's his point. This keeps getting press, took away from a match-up of SB contenders because the commentators felt like discussing a concluded issue for 3 hours, it will take away from looking ahead at Week 3 match-ups, and will take away from those games too. Why do we still need to discuss this? That's where his "it's just a game" comes into play. Can't we just sit there and enjoy these games without hearing hours of people repeating the same crap we've heard a million times?
I just don't think it's going to get swept under the rug. Belichick won't talk about it, which is part of the problem. No one knows exactly what went on, so there's a ton of curiosity. The fact that it involves the winningest team of the past decade only heightens the intrigue.People don't talk about Jason Grimsley using steroids, but they still talk about Bonds using it. This, despite Bonds having no documentation about steroids in a couple of years. He's passed every test, but people still want to talk about it.It may be "just a game", but it's serious to a lot of fans and big business to lots of people. Should it have overshadowed an actual game, Chargers-Patriots? Maybe, maybe not. That's really up to NFL fans and the media to decide.
 
This is actually very unlike Simmons, especially considering he had the opposite stance about a week ago. Despite his homer-centric subject matter, he is usually pretty careful about not going overboard.

I think this had to be a conscious effort by himself/editors to steer from the norm and stir things up.

He's still about the most worthwhile read on ESPN, but yes, this was him at his worst. I'm sure he will say something in his next piece, how he was in rant mode and he received a million hate emails after that one which should keep him in check. I think he intentionally wants to take on the role of the 'heel' here, and with the Pats success as insurance, it seems like a pretty safe bet that he will come out on top when all is said and done.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting commentary so far.... I had to add another perspective from ESPN that I found fascinating, and is quite the stark contrast to Bill's "get over it...it's time to move on".... Below, I have copied the opening of this week's Tuesday Morning Quarterback by Gregg Easterbrooke. If you aren't familiar with Gregg I would offer the following as a comparison to Bill Simmons. Take a Sports Guy column with the uncanny sports observations, subtract the Boston homer-ism, add doctorate-level intellect, substitute pop culture references with political/current events, and then add about 5,000,000 words to the column...and you would esentailly have Gregg Easterbrooke's TMQ.. He knows the game of football very well, and often offers perspective that is totally unique to anyone else. (Ie I love his theory on why teams should 'never' punt). Anyway, here is HIS take on the Belichick situation. It's a long read, but certainly an interesting opinion.....

Belichick's cheating could lead to dark days for NFL

By Gregg Easterbrook

Special to Page 2

Updated: September 18, 2007, 3:23 PM ET

The situation with the National Football League is a lot worse than people realize, and the only one who seems to grasp this fully is commissioner Roger Goodell. You don't issue emergency orders backed by threats on Sunday morning of a game day, as Goodell just did regarding the New England Patriots' files of cheating information, unless the situation is a lot worse than people realize.

Why is the situation worse than people think? Because the NFL is on the precipice of blowing its status as the country's favorite sport. The whole NFL enterprise is in jeopardy from that single word: cheating. It's the most distasteful word in sports. And now the Patriots have brought the word into the NFL.

Think the NFL can't decline? Fifteen years ago, the National Basketball Association was going up, up, up by every measure and was widely considered the gold-plated can't-miss "sport of the next century." Since then, NBA popularity and ratings have plummeted while NBA-based teams have floundered in international competition. At the moment of its maximum success, the NBA became overconfident and arrogant in ways that need not be recounted here. Key point: There was no law of nature that said the NBA had to stay popular, and it did not.

Today the NFL is king of the hill in sports status, ratings, merchandising and association with the American psyche. There is no law of nature that says the NFL has to stay popular. Overconfidence and arrogance could be the downfall of the NFL, too – and we might be on that precipice. People will always watch and play football, of course. But nothing guarantees that the NFL's version of football must remain the super-successful money machine that it is today. There could be autumn Sunday afternoons in the near future in which the overwhelming majority of Americans couldn't care less what NFL games are being shown. Fifteen years ago, sports-marketing types would have said "impossible!" to the notion that only 11 percent of American households would watch the NBA Finals, which is what happened this June. Plummeting popularity for NFL broadcasts seems "impossible!" right now, but might happen fast enough to make your head swim.

Criminal behavior by NFL players, haughty owners who demand public subsidies, negative press for the union, coaches who snarl at the public instead of acting grateful for their privileged positions, insufferable egotism from multimillionaire athletes: All these things can be overlooked as long as the games themselves are good. If the games themselves are tainted, the NFL could tumble with amazing speed. And now there is a cheating scandal – cheating by the team that presented itself as the epitome of the sport – which calls the games themselves into question.

First we learn that the Patriots were cheating by using video equipment to steal signs, in blatant violation of league rules. Then we learn that even after the scandal broke and Bill Belichick issued his Nixonian stonewalling statement, the Patriots were still keeping sign-stealing videotapes and notes from past games. Surrender of the tapes and notes was the subject of Goodell's emergency order, first reported by ESPN's Chris Mortensen. Sunday night on NBC's "Football Night in America," Goodell threatened more punishment of the Patriots if all cheating materials aren't surrendered, and repeatedly declared it was imperative that NFL games be fair and equal competition. That's exactly the crux of the threat Belichick has created to the league's golden goose.

Consider the Sunday night contest. New England had played San Diego just four games back, in the January 2007 postseason. Perhaps Belichick's cameraman was illegally taping the Chargers that day, and perhaps Belichick illegally used the information against the Chargers on Sunday night. The San Diego coaching staff has changed since the playoff game, so presumably its defensive calls are different. But San Diego's new defensive coordinator, Ted Cottrell, was defensive coordinator for the Bills and Jets, both AFC East teams, in the Belichick period. Perhaps Belichick has spied on Cottrell's calls before and took out the tapes of the spying rather than handing them over as Goodell demanded. Was New England cheating again Sunday night, when the Patriots advanced the ball with such ease it seemed they knew what defense San Diego would be in?

And the Patriots' cheating might have been more extensive than so far confirmed. Fox Sports reported that former NFL players believe Belichick had microphones installed in the shoulder pads of defensive linemen so the Patriots could tape other teams' offensive audibles and line calls. Needless to say, putting microphones on players violates NFL rules. Andrea Kremer of NBC reported that several teams might charge the Patriots this week with having stolen playbooks from the visitors' dressing room. The convenient "malfunction" of visiting teams' headphones at the Patriots' two fields under Belichick seems to have happened far too often to be an IT department error. The rumor mill says Belichick, Richard Nixon-style, has file cabinets of info on opposing coaches and assistant coaches – some gleaned honestly, some obtained by cheating.

It seems more than just an eerie coincidence that Belichick's unethical behavior involves illicit taping, the same offense that made Nixon's actions so sordid. The parallels to Nixon don't stop there. Caught, Belichick – like Nixon – tried to hide the true extent of the prohibited acts; Belichick – like Nixon – tried to claim his prohibited action hadn't been prohibited; Belichick – like Nixon – immediately stonewalled. It would be tempting to break the unhappy tone of this column with a Nixon joke – when the league plays Belichick's tape of the Jets' sideline, will there be an 18-and-a-half minute gap? But for all lovers of the NFL, there's just nothing to laugh about now.

AP Photo

The Patriots announced they have hired "Swede" Risberg to investigate cheating allegations against the team.

What else is there about New England cheating that the team or league isn't telling us? Are the Patriots one bad apple, or is cheating common in the league? Worst, did the Patriots cheat in their Super Bowl wins? If New England was cheating in the Super Bowl, this will become the darkest sports scandal since Shoeless Joe and the Black Sox. If you don't think Goodell and all owners, including Robert Kraft of New England, are in abject terror of any possible disclosure that the Patriots were cheating in the Super Bowl, perhaps you just don't understand the situation.

The weasel wording of Belichick's Nixonian statement shows the New England coach full of contempt for the NFL fans, and the NFL enterprise, that made him a wealthy celebrity. Belichick declared that his super-elaborate cheating system was only a "mistake" caused by his "interpretation" of the league's rule. Wait, "interpretation"? The NFL rule bans teams from filming each other's sidelines. There's no room for interpretation, it's a ban! Here's the NFL policy, from a memo sent to all head coaches and general managers Sept. 6, 2006: "Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game." Prohibited. There's nothing there to "interpret." Videotaping opponent's signals even after getting this warning isn't a "mistake," it's cheating. Belichick's cheating was not some casual spur-of-the-moment blunder but rather an elaborate staffed system that took a lot of work to put into place and that Belichick worked hard to hide. And you don't hide something unless you are ashamed of it.

Michael Vick tried to deny and stonewall, but at the last owned up and admitted what he did. That's dignity. Belichick is now using weasel words to deny responsibility for his own choices. What kind of example does that set for the young? "Make good choices," football coaches constantly preach to the young. Now, caught, Belichick wants a special exemption to responsibility for his own choices. Belichick also is trying to close the matter by saying he won't talk about it anymore. So he cheated and now unilaterally declares the matter closed because he doesn't want to face the consequences of his own choices. But this is not over and not going away. Before the cheating scandal, Belichick had a reputation for being heartless but a really good coach. Now, he seems little more than a creepy con artist, and it's the refusal to act like a man and take full responsibility that's really offensive. Goodell's draft-choice penalty against the Patriots – either a first or a second and a third – is the highest draft penalty ever imposed in the NFL. The severity of this sanction shows how seriously Goodell takes the violation. If more disclosures are coming, there might be a lot more punishment of the Patriots. And unless Belichick comes clean and stops lying about his cheating, this event should disqualify him from consideration for the Pro Football Hall of Fame – it is, after all, not the Hall of Cheaters.

Will Belichick even be in coaching by season's end? When the Vick dogfighting scandal first broke, most football pundits, and most in the Atlanta and league offices, thought there would be few repercussions. Then they thought Vick would have to make some kind of apology. Then they thought he'd need some leave of absence. Then they thought he'd be suspended for a year. Now they wonder whether he'll ever be allowed to play again. By acting Nixonian, Belichick is accelerating his fall from grace. Today, Belichick and New England are trying to pretend the scandal is over. It would not surprise me in the slightest if, before the season ends, Belichick resigns, or is suspended, or is fired by Kraft, or even is permanently barred from the league. Belichick's head might be necessary to preserve the integrity of the game. Surprisingly soon, sacrificing Belichick to save professional football might seem an attractive option, even to Kraft. Remember, there is no law of nature that says the NFL must remain popular.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Talk about missing the point. Someone did something stupid, got caught, and will pay the price (argue the reasonableness of the punishment somewhere else). The story is over; let's move on. That's his point.
But if it's A-Rod slapping a ball out of somebody's glove, we can still be beating it into the ground three years later...He can't have it both ways. As Joe would say, pick a lane.
 
I understand the key argument -- "the story is done, stop talking about it" -- but I also think that's where the key disagreement is. The story is not over. The camera is only one piece of the puzzle, and it's the only part that has been addressed by NFL management to this point. If there is more to the story, why should we just say "oh, they got punished for the camera, isn't that enough?" if we can really clean this problem up?

And completely agree with Chase and others. Quite a disconnect between Now I Can Die in Peace and "there are more important things". Simmons's expertise isn't in real journalism about real topics; it isn't really even in sports either. It's in entertainment in a sports context, which he completely fell short in this column.

All that said ... Simmons has definitely improved in the past year or so with the Sox win another year removed, the Pats being humiliated in the 2nd half of the AFCC, and being a father. His non-Boston-centric NBA columns (will be fewer this year since the Celtics are relevant again) are still far, far better than the rest of his work but the disparity is not as wide as it was back in the 2004-2005 range. :kicksrock:

His podcast is also much better lately than it was in the early going. Not interesting enough to subscribe to, but from topic to topic may be worth a listen.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I read Simmons regularly and am usually entertained by his columns. What irritated me the most about this was all of his complaining about NBC, how they really missed the point, how their priorities are more focused on the cheating and scandal (which I don't think we've heard the end of yet) rather than the competition between two Super Bowl contenders, etc.

Uh, Bill, don't you draw your salary from the network that has elevated to an art form all of these things you rant about? Thank you...

 
Not that I expect it to be posted, but I e-mailed him the following:

I was proud to see your comparison in your column about Belichick to 9/11 and the Iraq war. Surely the author of "Now I Can Die in Peace", a book about a sports team winning 11 games in October, isn't a homer when his team is in the news for something bad. Your new perspective must represent a more mature Bill Simmons. I anxiously await your column following Kevin Garnett's first 40-20 game for the Celtics, where you write: "I'd love to tell you how excited I am and how dominant KG is, but I'm just way too bummed about the millions that have been killed, raped and driven from their homes in Darfur."
Wow. Oh Billy is going to pay dearly for this one, isn't he?
I like Simmons, but his "sports isn't a big deal" when the Pats get busted is one of the more pathetic things I've seen a columnist write in a long time.
:P You can't get upset about people making a big deal about the Pats cheating after acting as if the Red Sox and Patriots winning championships were the greatest thing to ever happen. If you want the good, you gotta take the bad along with it.
 
GroveDiesel said:
You can't get upset about people making a big deal about the Pats cheating after acting as if the Red Sox and Patriots winning championships were the greatest thing to ever happen. If you want the good, you gotta take the bad along with it.
Not to mention, I can't remember him breaking out the "let the story die, after all there's a war in Iraq" argument when covering the NBA officiating scandal.
 
i love the people who complain about simmons' quality of work while making it obvious that they still read him all the time.

if it's so bad, why read it? not enough stuff on the internet to find an alternative?

as far as the rant, i found it truly enjoyable, with a couple of pretty stupid cringe-worthy statements detracting somewhat from the rant (his sports isn't that important riff as well as his outlandish theories about what might have really been behind cameragate)

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top