Bill Simmons Craps on the Pats in his Power Poll - Where's Rodney - New England Patriots Forums

***PatsDeb*** · 12-08-2006, 02:16 PM

He ranked us 9th in the "Fatally Flawed" category (along with Jacksonville) with this nugget:

"9. New England
If you had told me six years ago that (A) the Pats would win three Super Bowls in the next four years, (B) the Pats would be 9-3 in December 2006, (C) I'd be giving that 2006 season a C-minus through 13 weeks, and (D) my buddy J-Bug (a season ticket-holder since the MacPherson era) would be skipping Sunday home games because, and I quote, "I just didn't feel like going" ... there's no way I would have believed any of it. "

and ranked 8 teams ahead of us, including Cincinnati, Chicago, Baltimore and Seattle. Some fan. Sorry if the link doesn't work, I am not computer savy.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...simmons/061208

EDIT - I forgot he had this little gem earlier in the article:

"Unrelated note: If I had to wager back in early-September on the "most inevitable Patriots-related thing that will happen during the 2006 season," it would have been a four-way tie between Rodney Harrison getting seriously injured, Junior Seau getting seriously injured, a ticket-scalping scandal involving Fred Smerlas and Tom Brady's four-turnover game in a Miami loss on Dec. 10. Three down, one to go.)"

***PATSNUTme*** · 12-08-2006, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsDeb

He ranked us 9th in the "Fatally Flawed" category (along with Jacksonville) with this nugget:

"9. New England
If you had told me six years ago that (A) the Pats would win three Super Bowls in the next four years, (B) the Pats would be 9-3 in December 2006, (C) I'd be giving that 2006 season a C-minus through 13 weeks, and (D) my buddy J-Bug (a season ticket-holder since the MacPherson era) would be skipping Sunday home games because, and I quote, "I just didn't feel like going" ... there's no way I would have believed any of it. "

and ranked 8 teams ahead of us, including Cincinnati, Chicago, Baltimore and Seattle. Some fan. Sorry if the link doesn't work, I am not computer savy.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...simmons/061208

How can we all go on if Bill Simmons thinks that the Patriots are not a good team?

***PatsDeb*** · 12-08-2006, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PATSNUTme

How can we all go on if Bill Simmons thinks that the Patriots are not a good team?

Oh we can go on - it's just that he is supposed to be a Pats fan, and he predicts Brady will turn the ball over 4 times in a loss to Miami this weekend. Just trying to light a fire, Nut.

***PATSNUTme*** · 12-08-2006, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsDeb

Oh we can go on - it's just that he is supposed to be a Pats fan, and he predicts Brady will turn the ball over 4 times in a loss to Miami this weekend. Just trying to light a fire, Nut.

Indeed, you did!

Don't forget NEM is a Patriots fan too.

primetime · 12-08-2006, 02:41 PM

He is a Pats fan. Notice how Pats fans and Boston fans in general tend to be a little pessimistic regarding their teams, year in and year out? One bad game and the sky's falling. If anything, this just shows Simmons is more of a Pats fan.

Willie55 · 12-08-2006, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsDeb

Oh we can go on - it's just that he is supposed to be a Pats fan, and he predicts Brady will turn the ball over 4 times in a loss to Miami this weekend. Just trying to light a fire, Nut.

Turning it over 4 times wouldn't surprise me. Brady always struggles against the Dolphins, home or away.

Pat_Nasty · 12-08-2006, 02:55 PM

Bill Simmons really doesn't know that much about the NFL.

Of the three major pro sports (and hockey), it's definitely his weakest area. Basketball is his strongest, by a lot -- probably the only sport in which he has more insight to offer than your average message board poster. His columns are still entertaining, because he's a great humorist, but don't make the mistake of confusing him for any sort of expert.

Take this excerpt from today's column:

Quote:

OK, it's time for my pet peeve of the 2006 season: During last Sunday's Jets-Packers game, the Jets roll down the field for an opening field goal. That's followed by a Packers punt and another Jets first down. Then Phil Simms gives us this one (I'm paraphrasing): "Well, when we talked to Chad Pennington last night, he was being coy about it, but you could just tell, he thought this was gonna be a very favorable matchup for this offense. You could see it in his eyes."

Now, Simms does this all the time. He's big on giving us inside info after the game starts, as are many of these color guys. But here's my question: What about giving us that little tidbit about 10 minutes before the game so we can profit from it? Shouldn't these pregame shows start a segment called, "Inside info that will help you for wagering and fantasy purposes?" I mean, the moment Simms said that whole thing, I was ready to bet my mortgage on the Jets. You know, if gambling was legal. And they ended up winning 38-10. That stuff drives me crazy. We're glad you found out a few days ago that Pennington thinks it's a great matchup for the Jets, or that Mike Shanahan feels like Tatum Bell can eat up Seattle's front seven ... but if we're finding out as the game is happening, that information is essentially useless. Right?

See the problem here? He's upset because nobody told him that GB would be a bad matchup for a teak w/ a decent passing game. Seriously -- Green Bay's defense is HORRIBLE vs. the pass -- and they're not great vs. the run, either. Hadn't he seen Brady throw 3 TD passes against them two weeks earlier? Didn't he actually ATTEND the Monday nighter where Seattle ran all over them, and, despite a struggling Hasselbeck, had receivers open all night who just couldn't hold onto the ball?

You shouldn't need Phil Simms to tell you that the Packers can't stop anybody.

kolbitr · 12-08-2006, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat_Nasty

Bill Simmons really doesn't know that much about the NFL.

Of the three major pro sports (and hockey), it's definitely his weakest area. Basketball is his strongest, by a lot -- probably the only sport in which he has more insight to offer than your average message board poster. His columns are still entertaining, because he's a great humorist, but don't make the mistake of confusing him for any sort of expert.

Agree completely. It's been a long time since Simmons has had much insight to offer on football since he left New England and the Pats won it all. He is clearly following the game as a fantasy football guy, and not as an analyst. Look back...he was much more excited last year when Brady was putting up bigger fantasy numbers...He is better able to get away with such a fantasy approach in his baseball coverage, because it represents its reality better in the box score than football does. The Sinister One's (Borges) insights concerning the level of defense in the Chicago game is a perfect example of how the box score would be deceiving.

I would say, though, that I would rate his basketball knowledge higher than you do...he has a lot more insight to offer than the average message boarder, and is far more eloquent.

Oswlek · 12-08-2006, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat_Nasty

Bill Simmons really doesn't know that much about the NFL.

Of the three major pro sports (and hockey), it's definitely his weakest area. Basketball is his strongest, by a lot -- probably the only sport in which he has more insight to offer than your average message board poster. His columns are still entertaining, because he's a great humorist, but don't make the mistake of confusing him for any sort of expert.

Take this excerpt from today's column:

See the problem here? He's upset because nobody told him that GB would be a bad matchup for a teak w/ a decent passing game. Seriously -- Green Bay's defense is HORRIBLE vs. the pass -- and they're not great vs. the run, either. Hadn't he seen Brady throw 3 TD passes against them two weeks earlier? Didn't he actually ATTEND the Monday nighter where Seattle ran all over them, and, despite a struggling Hasselbeck, had receivers open all night who just couldn't hold onto the ball?

You shouldn't need Phil Simms to tell you that the Packers can't stop anybody.

I agree with this totally. The more I learn about football, the more I realize that Bill knows less about it than at least 50% of the people on this message board..... and I am probably undershooting that number greatly. He says at least one thing per football piece that is completely wrong. I'm not talking about an outlandish opinion, I am talking about personell, strategy or something that can be known to be factually inaccurate.

I still read him, but it is more for entertainment than anything else.

Pat_Nasty · 12-08-2006, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kolbitr

Agree completely. It's been a long time since Simmons has had much insight to offer on football since he left New England and the Pats won it all. He is clearly following the game as a fantasy football guy, and not as an analyst. Look back...he was much more excited last year when Brady was putting up bigger fantasy numbers...He is better able to get away with such a fantasy approach in his baseball coverage, because it represents its reality better in the box score than football does. The Sinister One's (Borges) insights concerning the level of defense in the Chicago game is a perfect example of how the box score would be deceiving.

I would say, though, that I would rate his basketball knowledge higher than you do...he has a lot more insight to offer than the average message boarder, and is far more eloquent.

I agree with you 100% about appreciating Simmons' basketball knowledge, and didn't intend to suggest otherwise. I'd add "emotion" to insight and eloquence in the list of things he brings to the table when writing about basketball -- the guy just obviously loves the game.