2437 replies to this topic

[Soxy Brown]

Like Simmons was the only person who jumped off the bandwagon and wanted to blow the team up? Not sure if you've noticed, but everyone's jumping back on the bandwagon. A bandwagon that was rightfully abandoned when the team looked like crap during the first half of the season. Why should Simmons be singled out when a bunch of Celtics fans felt pretty much the same way, and are also now jumping back on board? Or are they all shitty fans too?

[Old Fart Tree]

Soxy has a good point. I still don't think there's any way this team makes a run in the playoffs.

[ifmanis5]

No he doesn't, Simmons wasn't just off the bandwagon, he was off the reservation.
Take a look up-thread at some of his suggestions (and what most of us here thought of them) for Ainge. The self-appointed basketball expert (and a guy who was pushing himself as a potential NBA GM) sounded like a deranged WEEI caller who would've been hung up on in under 10 seconds. We have every right to give him grief.

[Grin&MartyBarret]

In fairness, based on the article, it sort of sounds like Ainge was off the bandwagon, too. Far and away the most interesting tidbit from that column was that Paul Pierce was on the table for the Nets pick that ultimately went to Portland.

[Stu Nahan]

Simmons does acknowledge the fact that he wrote a column burying the team and killing Danny Ainge. Like Soxy said, he was far from alone in thinking the Celtics were dead in the water earlier this season.

[DrewDawg]

So his analysis is basically "team not playing well, blow it up" and "team looking good, watch out NBA!"

I mean, that's how my 10 year old would analyze it...

[nattysez]

So his analysis is basically "team not playing well, blow it up" and "team looking good, watch out NBA!"

I mean, that's how my 10 year old would analyze it...

Actually, it's not. I am not a fan of Simmons, but this column does a great job of explaining how the turnaround happened and how improbable it was (especially KG's renaissance).

[LeftyTG]

maybe I was blind to it before, but it seems like Simmons has taken to directly quoting himself from previous columns. I find it incredibly distracting and annoying, as he's appealing to his own authority in attempting to prove/bolster his point. I'm sure others may not feel this way, but to me it comes across as excessively self possessed.

[americantrotter]

I thought that he was forthcoming in admitting his earlier articles make him look less than smart now. That's why he was quoting himself, he was pointing out where the celtics are now and where they were.

I really enjoyed the article, and thought the Ainge comments were interesting. Simmons has often been criticized for being thin-skinned. It was interesting to find out about Danny's thick skin at the same time that Simmons was offering up how wrong he was.

Was wondering how people would take the article and it seems the haters gonna hate still applies.

[JBill]

I like Simmons, probably more than most, but it's not "hating" to point out how he launched himself onto the bandwagon after previously destroying Ainge.

It was a good column, in fact I think after kind of a slow start, I've enjoyed his Grantland output more than what he was doing at page 2 for the last bit of time he was there. He's writing more, and I've even liked some of the columns outside his usual area (meaning, hockey). His podcasts have also been better, I think Jacoby produces them now, just seems like more of an effort to get good guests and keep Simmons focused.

[PBDWake]

I have no issues with it (in fact, I really enjoyed it), and I've criticized him a lot in the past. Honestly, I think it's kind of stupid to harp on him for being "off the bandwagon" for thinking the Celtics weren't going to contend earlier in the year, especially if he's admitting he was wrong. It's silly to expect people to be right about everything. If he were to pretend he'd thought they were contenders all along, that's more inexcusable. He did a pretty good job of explaining the rational reasoning behind his opinion, and it's not like he was like "The Celtics suck so I'm not bothering/not rooting".

[gammoseditor]

I think this article, while reasonable, just highlights how epically bad the one killing Ainge was. He acted like Ainge had no business running an NBA team and in reality it showed why he has no business running an NBA team.

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

I liked the article, I really did, it got me incredibly pumped up for the Celts in the playoffs but the one thing that I didn't like is his flip-flopping between, "I knew they were going to be pretty good" (he talks about this when he went to the Warriors game) and "I wanted them to blow up the team, I'm an idiot!" I think that the latter is probably what he was thinking at the time (and we've seen in columns from the beginning of the season) and the former is probably an honest rewriting of (recent) history.

Sort of like when something bad happens to you and looking back you see all of the signs that are now obvious after the incident occurred. "She put my cat in the microwave, she called my mom a slut to her face and she punched me in the eye. Of course, I wasn't going to marry her!" However, Simmons doesn't frame it like that. And Simmons isn't the only writer that does this, most do (including Peter King who is the fucking worst at this type of writing) but it's hard to take this column seriously (with him analyzing the Celts' recent streak) with him see-sawing from "I (kind of) saw this coming" to "I had no clue this was coming".

I think that if he just admitted that he didn't see it coming, without hedging his bets -- to let the readers know that he's an insider, then it would be a more "honest" column. But, that's one of the shortcomings of Simmons; he's never entirely wrong.

A few things I found interesting though and I wonder why he didn't report on the first two sooner:

1. Pierce was going to NJ
2. Rondo was never getting traded, other teams were floating his name out there to get him pissed off
3. J.O. is really disliked by the rest of the team (this was most shocking to me)

[PBDWake]

2. Rondo was never getting traded, other teams were floating his name out there to get him pissed off
3. J.O. is really disliked by the rest of the team (this was most shocking to me)

#2 surprised me, and after my first read through, I was planning to call bullshit, because everyone and their mother had the Rondo reports out there, but as far as I can tell, in his articles, he's been pretty consistent that the only time Rondo's name was ever out there was in the Chris Paul trade.
#3 I actually heard, but only fairly recently. I have to think it was on Felger and Mazz because I remember it being on my way home from work, though it may have been on a podcast. It was around the time JO was basically saying "Buy me out, and I'm gonna go play for Miami, or if you don't, I'm gonna have surgery", and the commenters were grousing over it, because apparently he was a dick and the Celtics didn't like him anymore, which was odd because apparently the vets petititioned to get him signed.

[DrewDawg]

Actually, it's not. I am not a fan of Simmons, but this column does a great job of explaining how the turnaround happened and how improbable it was (especially KG's renaissance).

I'm not hating, and I liked the article. But all the insider stuff he mentioned happening around the deadline-- why not write about it then? Then it's not simply writing blow it up when they suck and the opposite when they win.

[SydneySox]

A few things I found interesting though and I wonder why he didn't report on the first two sooner:

1. Pierce was going to NJ
2. Rondo was never getting traded, other teams were floating his name out there to get him pissed off
3. J.O. is really disliked by the rest of the team (this was most shocking to me)

It was a good and readable article for someone like me who 'follows' the NBA by reading Celtics game recaps every day. I'd like to follow them but I have only one team I can handle getting up at 2am to watch and sneaking off at lunchtime to the McDonalds with free wifi down the road so I can listen to Gameday audio... The Bruins!

But these three points are spot on from Mr JMOH.

1. Wtf? That's something I'd like to read more about.
2. Really? Sounds like exactly the sort of thing that 'insiders' say later after they helped spread the rumours in columns.
3. This is also something that we have to 'take his word for' without any real basis beyond his connections... I'd be interested to read a fleshed out version of that story but his just throwing it in as an 'oh by the way' is infuriating to read.

[triniSox]

Gotta say I loved the article today: http://www.grantland...g-miami-madness

A few gems in this one e.g. "Chris Bosh has turned into a taller Brandon Bass"

[DrewDawg]

He jinxed the Celtics though.

[Fishercat]

Since we apparently have to pick sides in this stupid/jealous/predictable "Girls" backlash, I'm happily picking Team Dunham. She's talented.

This is pretty rich considering his petulant, whiny column on the Killing finale. He really has no room to be calling other people's reactions on a show stupid or jealous (considering how flawed both shows were).

[nattysez]

This is pretty rich considering his petulant, whiny column on the Killing finale. He really has no room to be calling other people's reactions on a show stupid or jealous (considering how flawed both shows were).

I could not disagree more. And the criticisms of the shows are completely different, so comparing them doesn't make any sense to me.

[Fishercat]

I agree the criticisms are different, but the way he approached his critique (like a three year old who was nipped by a poodle) was much like the stupid, jealous, predictable backlash he laments above. I put my thoughts on the Girls and Killing criticisms in their respective topics, I just thought it was rich of him to criticize other people for being jealous and predictable.

[nattysez]

OK, we've just got a difference of opinion here.

"The Killing" finale was, to me, completely ridiculous and insulting to viewers (and this insult was made worse when the creator of the show then essentially said that people who didn't like the finale were dumb). I don't think Simmons was jealous or predictable in disliking it. But I also understand that a lot of people found reactions like mine (and Simmons's) to The Killing finale overblown.

[Fishercat]

His lambasting of the show, after his binky TV critics did it better, was one of the more predictable things he's ever done.

I wasn't a huge fan of the finale (the redeeming factor was Richmond not being the killer, but YMMV on that), and I don't blame people like you or Dolomite or Alan Sepinwall or Bill Simmons for not liking it or even hating it. But writing an entire hate article without knowing the second most important character's name, dedicating an entire paragraph to the size of Mirielle Enos' breasts, and getting pissy that the showrunner (who is a complete fool IMO) didn't reveal the ending of Season 1 to his TV critic buddies. It's pretty much the definition of the people he's looking down on for the Girls' criticisms, however different they may be.

[SydneySox]

Wait... Richmond wasn't the killer? You jerk.

[drleather2001]

Is this from a podcast? I don't see a column.

I will say (having not read/heard his argument) that Bill Simmons is about the least credible person in the world to be criticizing others on their choice of television shows.

Exhibit A: Refused to watch "The Wire", arguably the best show in history, because it was "too popular."
Exhibit B: His two favorite shows are 90210 and Miami Vice.

[Fishercat]

Is this from a podcast? I don't see a column.

I will say (having not read/heard his argument) that Bill Simmons is about the least credible person in the world to be criticizing others on their choice of television shows.

Exhibit A: Refused to watch "The Wire", arguably the best show in history, because it was "too popular."
Exhibit B: His two favorite shows are 90210 and Miami Vice.

http://espn.go.com/e...ry-first-degree

For the record.

[Grin&MartyBarret]

Out of curiosity, where did he write about Girls?

[Fishercat]

Just the tweet listed above. He likes the show, I agree that it's a good show and some of the criticisms are overblown, I just thought it was funny to see that comment coming from him

[The Social Chair]

I didn't like the Girls pilot but the criticism hasn't even been about the show's content. It's been about the cast's race, nepotism, and their attractiveness. All unfair attacks in my opinion, and that's what Simmons was referring to.

Is this from a podcast? I don't see a column.

I will say (having not read/heard his argument) that Bill Simmons is about the least credible person in the world to be criticizing others on their choice of television shows.

Exhibit A: Refused to watch "The Wire", arguably the best show in history, because it was "too popular."
Exhibit B: His two favorite shows are 90210 and Miami Vice.

The Mann influence on Vice in it's first two seasons made for some great TV. I was too young to watch it in the 80s, but I watched the DVDs recently and was blown away by a lot of it.

[SidelineCameras]

Exhibit B: His two favorite shows are 90210 and Miami Vice.

Just for the record, he has written/said in podcasts many times that his favorite show of all time is "The White Shadow."

Not sure if that helps or hurts his case, just so we have the facts straight.

[drleather2001]

Fair enough.

Nobody is saying that Dunham isn't talented, she obviously is. I think people are just pointing out that the show may not be as great as they were lead to believe. I'm not even sure that counts as a true "backlash" so much as just "first impressions."

I haven't heard anyone come out and bash the show (aside from what seems to be a wierd racial concern that seems misguided), people are critiquing the show as they would any other show, whether it was the brainchild of a guy, a girl, or a giraffe. Just because the show is female centric in all ways doesn't mean disliking it makes you "jealous".

He can't even stand people criticising the things he likes. The thin skin abounds.

Edited by drleather2001, 19 April 2012 - 05:01 PM.

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

Just for the record, he has written/said in podcasts many times that his favorite show of all time is "The White Shadow."

Not sure if that helps or hurts his case, just so we have the facts straight.

"The White Shadow" is an awesome show, you can't slag a guy for that.

[drleather2001]

In his latest mailbag, three of the first four letters are people begging for a new mailbag. Then adds another about halfway through.

Then he spends the last few posts being lauded for his silly way of ending the mailbag.

[PBDWake]

It's fine. At least it wasn't bad as his hockey talk with House. Because he's now a big NHL fan, and as a certified Kings expert, he knows what they need. What they need is a pest. Like Shea Wilson (At least, I'm pretty sure that's what he called him. I'm about 100% sure it wasn't Weber, though). That guy on Nashville who slammed that Red Wings player's head into the glass. Because, see, the Kings have a pest in Mike Richards, but he's overqualified to be a pest, since he's good. They need someone who'll just slam bodies and cross check and be a dick and a good pest, but isn't that good a player. Like Shea.

[DanoooME]

It's fine. At least it wasn't bad as his hockey talk with House. Because he's now a big NHL fan, and as a certified Kings expert, he knows what they need. What they need is a pest. Like Shea Wilson (At least, I'm pretty sure that's what he called him. I'm about 100% sure it wasn't Weber, though). That guy on Nashville who slammed that Red Wings player's head into the glass. Because, see, the Kings have a pest in Mike Richards, but he's overqualified to be a pest, since he's good. They need someone who'll just slam bodies and cross check and be a dick and a good pest, but isn't that good a player. Like Shea.

Clearly someone grew up watching too much Kenny Linseman,

[Super Nomario]

Sportsguy thinks defensive player of the year should be partially based on whether "he is drawing in his dudes."

JH: "Dwight Howard plays hard though!"
BS: "But we went to that Indiana game."
JH: "They won against Indiana!"
BS: "But he has no correlation with his teammates!"

[ifmanis5]

Sportsguy thinks defensive player of the year should be partially based on whether "he is drawing in his dudes."

JH: "Dwight Howard plays hard though!"
BS: "But we went to that Indiana game."
JH: "They won against Indiana!"
BS: "But he has no correlation with his teammates!"

To be fair, Howard's handshakes aren't great either.

Bill makes up his mind about people based on his on metric of whether that person seems cool or not. Then he sticks with that conclusion to the bitter end. I liked most of that podcast until they got to hockey. Yikes.

[Rook05]

While the concept of filling out his ballot in the podcast is good, I've had just about enough of Joe House's Yes Man schtick. At least JackO will challenge Bill once in a while, even if he is equally uniformed. To use Bill's parlance, House takes things off the table.

Of course, I'm just bitter that I "had" to listen to them because Men in Blazers wasn't updated.

[deanx0]

While the concept of filling out his ballot in the podcast is good, I've had just about enough of Joe House's Yes Man schtick. At least JackO will challenge Bill once in a while, even if he is equally uniformed. To use Bill's parlance, House takes things off the table.

Of course, I'm just bitter that I "had" to listen to them because Men in Blazers wasn't updated.

I think the complete opposite is true. House may agree with Simmons, but House at least understands his topic (NBA) and provides interesting insights about teams. JackO strikes me as a JackAss.

[Dollar]

Today's Simmons article is right in his wheelhouse. He really is at his best when it comes to NBA history.

http://www.grantland...-footnote-title

[drleather2001]

I guess. But ultimately, so what? What's his point? That sometimes star players get hurt and other teams win? That sometimes the best regular season team doesn't win the championship?

I feel like this is in his "wheelhouse" purely because he writes a column almost exactly like this one every couple of years, except he changes the title.

[Shelterdog]

I skimmed the column and I was struck by the whole "Jordan suspended for gambling" line. I've heard BSG mention this manu time before, and I guess I'd like to know if he (who I've got to think hears as many NBA rumors as anyone) really thinks this happened or if he thinks it's an absurd conpsiracy theory (which has always been my assumption) and just uses it as kind of a running gag. It seems like "the jordan suspension rules" or something would be great topic for a 30 for 30 or grantland article.

[gammoseditor]

I skimmed the column and I was struck by the whole "Jordan suspended for gambling" line. I've heard BSG mention this manu time before, and I guess I'd like to know if he (who I've got to think hears as many NBA rumors as anyone) really thinks this happened or if he thinks it's an absurd conpsiracy theory (which has always been my assumption) and just uses it as kind of a running gag. It seems like "the jordan suspension rules" or something would be great topic for a 30 for 30 or grantland article.

I think he addressed this at one point. I could be wrong but I think he said something like it probably didn't happen but there's a 5% chance it did.

[GLOSS]

I skimmed the column and I was struck by the whole "Jordan suspended for gambling" line.

Speaking of gambling: http://www.nesn.com/...-win-award.html

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Speaking of gambling: http://www.nesn.com/...-win-award.html

I think the question that brings up is how the hell did he get a vote for NBA MVP in the first place? I get that he's a writer for ESPN whose strength lies in basketball, but he's not an NBA specific writer. Is this a privilege of ESPN being a TV partner with the NBA or are their criteria for who votes for their awards far less stringent than I expect them to be?

[drleather2001]

EDIT: So he only got the ballot 2/3 through the season?

Huh. Still, he should have declined the offer to vote.

Edited by drleather2001, 03 May 2012 - 04:30 PM.

[ifmanis5]

One thing's for sure- Bob Ryan will be writing for Grantland after he retires from The Globe. If he so desires.

[TheRealness]

I think the question that brings up is how the hell did he get a vote for NBA MVP in the first place? I get that he's a writer for ESPN whose strength lies in basketball, but he's not an NBA specific writer. Is this a privilege of ESPN being a TV partner with the NBA or are their criteria for who votes for their awards far less stringent than I expect them to be?

I love that he has a vote. He knows basketball. He did write, "The Book of Basketball", which is like eleventy-billion pages long.

And I agree on Ryan. I would bet Simmons has already offered him a position 20 times just to talk to him some more about basketball.

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

One thing's for sure- Bob Ryan will be writing for Grantland after he retires from The Globe. If he so desires.

There is no way that this is not going to happen. Charlie Pierce, Bob Ryan all he needs now is Peter Gammons and the ghost Wil McDonough.

[URI]

Leigh Montville too.