When Bill Simmons Writes Ridiculous Bullshit, You Know I'll Be Here To Complain

Mailbag time. Pot, meet kettle.

Q: Did you go to the Celtics-Clippers game? We were looking for you, but it was hard to find the Sports Guy in the sea of brand-new Kevin Garnett jerseys.
-- Kevin, Redondo Beach, Calif.

SG: Of course, I went! You're right, the entire arena had the "fresh car" smell, only it was the "fresh jersey from the Celtics Pro Shop" smell. There were more Boston fans there for that game than the last three Celtics-Clippers games combined. (My favorite sighting: Famed Hollywood producer Brian Grazer sitting courtside with his two sons, both of whom were wearing KG jerseys.) With that said, on the Bandwagon Jumping Scale, the Celtics jumpers can't come close to matching what happened with the New York Football Giants over the past four weeks. Three points here:

1. I have uttered or e-mailed the phrase, "Wow, I didn't know you were a Giants fan, congratulations!" at least 15 times since Feb. 3.

2. I can't remember seeing a single Giants hat or jersey in L.A. before Feb. 3. In the past four weeks, I've seen at least 20.

3. Back in Manhattan, one of my editors, Mike Philbrick, swears that dozens of New Yorkers have been hospitalized after passing out from the fumes of people walking around the city wearing brand-new Giants hats and replica jerseys.

ZING! How Jimmy Kimmel has managed to rise to near A-list comedic status despite having Bill occasionally write for him is a minor miracle. Take that, New Yorkers... you bought a bunch of clothes! Even moreso, take that, Asian factory laborers who make NFL apparel. Your brain cells are dying in droves every day because of those nasty fumes!

Of course, that isn't the real reason I decided to make a post out of this. While it's admirable that he recognizes the fact that the Celtics are currently a huge bandwagon favorite, it's also downright ludicrous that he dares to print this email given that his other two favorite teams also enormous bandwagon picks. How many people gave a fuck about the Patriots before 2001? How many non-New England natives liked the Red Sox before 2003/2004? I would go so far as to say that the Red Sox and Patriots are probably the two biggest bandwagon picks in all of sports over the course of the past ten years. That's right, I said it. And the Patriots are notable for the fact that they became a bandwagon pick in 2001, then actually acquired a second wave of bandwagoners this past fall. That kind of double bandwagonism is hard to pull off. I don't even think the Yankees managed that in 1999/2000.

Obviously this happens to teams that do well all the time. Due to their recent success, my favorite baseball team currently has a large number of fans that probably couldn't name more than one or two guys on the roster a year ago. So I'm not saying Boston's teams are alone in this regard. I am however saying that Bill sourpussedly complaining about all the Giants bandwagoners when he happens to cheer exclusively for teams that also currently sport gigantic bandwagons, is, as the title of the post states, ridiculous bullshit.

(Let's just move on before I start sounding bitter.)

Let's just move on before you write any more awful jokes.

Peter King, Please Shut Up

First, let's briefly hand out the Reader Extra Participation Friday award for last week. Lots of good submissions, and thanks to everyone who threw their hats into the ring, but I'm going to award the title to Jones.

Moon launch: rockets make it possible

I mostly laughed at this because I could see it actually being on the cover of Popular Mechanics sometime in the early 60s. And without rockets, we wouldn't have this moment.

Next, let's do something painful and review why Peter King is annoying. From his "non-NFL thoughts of the week." (Yes, I know this blog is allegedly about sportswriting. But if this dummy is going to pop off at the mouth about other things while in the process of writing a football column, it's fair game.)

b. Finally saw Michael Clayton. Very good movie. Not as good as No Country for Old Men, or Charlie Wilson's War, but I believe if I were writing a blurb for the newspaper ad for Clayton, I would write: "Taut legal thriller.''

Wow. You have a way with words, my friend. How long did it take you to come up with that? It's so simple... yet so accurate. Watch your back, guy who currently writes newspaper ad blurbs for movies. There's a new guy who wants to do what you do (if you actually exist) in town.

c. Len Pasquarelli was up and about and feeling well in his Phoenix hospital room Sunday, just seven days after his bypass surgery. "Let me tell you something,'' Pasquarelli, the ESPN.com pro-football maven, reported from his bed Sunday afternoon, after his first post-bypass shower. "There's no better feeling in the world than your first shower after a heart attack.''

What does that mean? Len? Maybe you should just lie back down for a couple more days.

d. Coffeenerdness: No coffee news this week. None. Had a lot of tea, actually, coming off my bronchitis/virus/ear infections. Filled to the gills with the green tea, just like Phil Simms advises.

Phil Simms- health adviser to the stars. Does he have any recommendations as to how I should deal with my scoliosis? What about acne? Scurvy? Rickets?

e. Do people realize how silly they look and sound, even with Bluetooths (Blueteeth?) in their ears, to be cackling and talking loudly and gesturing with no one around.

Apparently King is still familiarizing himself with the concept of cellular telephones. Given how often he claims to text players, this is surprising. Either that or he wants to draw some meaningless distinction between hands-on cell usage and bluetooth-enabled usage.

OK, I think that was sufficiently awkward and painful.

WMTMQR: Gregg Easterbrook Is Still Very Wrong About Clock Management

I haven't done a WMTMQR in a while because Easterbrook has somewhat cleaned up his act recently. This has probably happened because he reads my scathing commentary and takes it to heart. But he tried to sneak a couple giant slices of crap pie into this week's column, so I might as well complain about them.

In other football news, would New England actually be better off losing Sunday against Jersey/B? If the Patriots beat the Jets, they lock in the No. 1 seed and home-field advantage throughout the postseason. Then, with two meaningless regular-season outings and a bye week, a full month will pass until Jan. 12, the earliest date the Flying Elvii could appear in another game that counts. Consider New England's last three regular-season opponents: the 3-10 Jets, the 0-13 Dolphins and a Giants squad that might be resting starters. Even the mad-at-the-world Pats could have trouble maintaining focus for an entire meaningless month. Meanwhile, Dallas is in almost the same situation as New England. With effectively a two-game lead over Green Bay -- owing to beating the Pack head-to-head -- through the final three weeks, the Cowboys need only a combination of Dallas wins and Green Bay losses that adds up to two to lock up home-field advantage in the NFC. Thus, Boys faithful actually might root for Green Bay to beat St. Louis on Sunday -- otherwise it's possible the Boys could lock up the top seed this weekend, and face a meaningless month of their own.

Oh yeah, definitely. I think think both of these teams should intentionally lose their next two games and hope Indy and Green Bay win both of theirs. That way, the Cowboys and Pats will have something at stake during week 17. That's a great strategy. No way that could possibly blow up in their faces. Or maybe Gregg is saying they should just lose this weekend, and then win to wrap up home field in week 16. Because, you know, a three week layoff from "meaningful" games is totally different than a 4 week layoff. Someone get this man a head coaching position.

It's been mentioned by commenters here before: do the "stats of the week" really add to anyone's enjoyment or understanding of football? Below, I have added a made up stat about my own life that I consider to be equally as interesting as what Gregg offers.

Stat of the Week No. 3: Since taking the field for their final playoff appearances last season, a combined 28-6 at that point, the Bears and Ravens are a combined 9-19.

Stat of Larry B's Week No. 1: Since choosing the fastest checkout lane at the supermarket twelve out of a possible fifteen times during a stretch that ended last January, Larry has chosen the fastest lane only two out of thirteen times.

Stat of the Week No. 6: Kansas City was outrushed by 199 yards.

Stat of Larry B's Week No. 2: Larry parallel parked his car four times.

Stat of the Week No. 8: In high school, college and now the pros, Derek Anderson is 3-1 as a starter against Kellen Clemens.

Stat of Larry B's Week No. 3: Including high school, college, and now post-college, Larry is 23-18 in pickup football games against Chris Hart.

Stat of the Week No. 9: At the end of the Cleveland-Jersey/B game, the Jets attempted three onside kicks in less than three minutes.

Stat of Larry B's Week No. 4: On Friday, Larry attempted to complete five transactions at the bank during their last seven minutes of business.

Tell me mine aren't better.

Sweet Special-Teams Plays of the Week: Trailing 17-3 with 10 minutes remaining, San Diego punted on fourth-and-29 at the Tennessee 40. Chargers special-teamers downed the ball at the Titans' 1, then the defense forced a three-and-out. Quick San Diego touchdown, and suddenly it's a game.

Although I will concede that converting a 4th and 29 is next to impossible, I can't count the number of times Gregg has bitched about teams punting from their opponent's territory while trailing in the 4th quarter. Now it's suddenly a good thing, as long as the team that does it subsequently forces a 3 and out. Had the Titans somehow put together a game icing field goal drive after this punt, I'm reasonably confident Easterbrook would have made some dumb point about how no matter the distance, punting in the 4th when you're trailing and in your opponent's territory is always bad.

Yes, I'm nitpicking. It's what we do here.

Dallas has reached the Detroit 16 with 22 seconds showing on the clock. To that point in the game, Boys tight end Jason Witten had 14 receptions for 122 yards. This is what is called "a clue."

What does that even mean? As if the Cowboys didn't have anyone else to throw to on that play. Assuming Marion Barber was in the game, he had 10 catches for 61 yards including an 8 yard touchdown at the end of the 1st half. Maybe that was "a clue." T.O. also has 74 catches for 1270 yards and 14 TDs on the season. That could have been "a clue" as well. Yeah, Witten was getting thrown to a lot during that particular game. That still doesn't guarantee shit on any one given play.

As the Cowboys broke the huddle, TMQ said aloud, "Maybe it's to Witten."

Easy there, Nostradamus. You had a one in five chance. And you didn't even say you knew for sure; you went with "maybe."

Moving on, I hadn't seen this particular demonstration of idiocy out of Gregg in a couple of months. But apparently old habits die hard.

TMQ's Law of the Obvious holds: Sometimes, all a team needs to do is run up the middle for no gain and things will be fine. Leading San Diego 17-10, host Tennessee faced third-and-4 on the Chargers' 46 with 2:37 remaining and San Diego down to one timeout. Run, grind the clock! Instead, incompletion, and San Diego scores to force overtime with nine seconds remaining. Had the Flaming Thumbtacks simply rushed up the middle for no gain, keeping the clock moving, the Chargers would have run out of time.

No. That is wrong. You can't say that with any certainty at all. You have no idea what would have happened if the Titans ran there. None. You have no idea how San Diego's play calling would have changed on their possession if they had 37 fewer seconds to work with. BOOOOOOO.

When Roger Goodell fined the Patriots a first-round choice in the Beli-Cheat scandal, it was New England's first-rounder, not the San Francisco choice acquired in trade, that Goodell voided. Belichick obtained San Francisco's first choice fair and square, and his decision to bank that choice reflects the wise husbandry New England has shown consistently under current management. Still, if the Patriots win the Super Bowl, then go second in the 2008 draft after Goodell publicly imposed what sounded like a harsh draft penalty, the situation will seem rigged, even if it isn't.

I hate the Patriots as much as anyone, but what the hell is the point of this? That's the item's conclusion: The Patriots have lost their own 1st rounder this April, but still possess another team's 1st rounder, which will probably be a top 5 pick. Even though there is nothing shady about this, it seems shady. What?

At the endgame, Washington led 24-13 and Chicago faced fourth-and-goal on the Redskins' 4 with 34 seconds remaining, holding a timeout. The Bears' faint hope was a touchdown and a two-point play and a field goal, wrapped around a recovered onside kick. Sure, that hope is faint, but to have any chance at all, Chicago needed to try for the touchdown first. Assume the onside kick will be recovered and the deuce will work. At the 34-second mark, the Bears were just 4 yards from a touchdown. If they go for the touchdown here, they need to gain 4 yards and -- after the deuce and the recovered onside, likely to be recovered just on their side of midfield -- will need to gain about 25 yards to attempt the field goal that forces overtime. Thus, Chicago needs about 30 offensive yards, plus success with the deuce and the onside, of course. If, on the other hand, the Bears take the field goal here, they must score a touchdown after the onside and will need to gain about 55 offensive yards to do so. So to keep the faint hope of victory aflame, the team should go for the touchdown first in this situation because it already is close to the goal line and, if successful with the onside, can launch the field goal try for long distance. Yet Lovie Smith ordered the field goal first. When this happens, it is fairly obvious the coach is not going all out to try to win but rather is taking the easy three points to make the final score more respectable and deflect criticism. (Washington got the onside.)

I agree that kicking there was probably bad strategy. I would have elected to go for the TD in that situation. But it's not like Smith's decision is completely indefensible. To accuse him of not really trying to win is laughable. I mean, let me play devil's advocate. Easterbrook's claim about the yards the Bears needed in each hypothetical situation was correct, but didn't factor in the number of plays the team would get in order to gain said yards. Had they recovered the onside after kicking the field goal, they would have had probably about three or four plays (maybe five) to get the 55 yards needed for the tying TD. That's pretty unlikely but not impossible. Sure, had they instead gone for it on 4th and gotten the touchdown, they would have had three or four plays to get a mere 25/30 yards needed for the tying field goal. But that opportunity only arrives after putting the entire game on the line for four yards on one play against a compressed defense. Failure, obviously, would have ended everything before an onside attempt even becomes part of the equation. So although I disagree with the decision, I can definitely see why Smith chose to kick. TMQ just loves implying that coaches care more about the margin of victory than their won-loss record; he's done it many times before this. It's pretty comical. When he's being evaluated by his owner/GM at the end of a failed season, what coach actually gets points for saying "Well, I went 5-11 this year, but nine of those losses were by single digits!" That's ridiculous and does not happen. Coaches are judged first and foremost on Ws and Ls. To imply anything else is WRONG. There is absolutely a 0% chance that Smith sent in his field goal team with any thought in mind other than "I think this gives us the best chance to win." Zero.

Speaking of WRONG, I think I'll wrap this up and attach the labels. And speaking of labels, don't you all love the kooky and zany labels we sometimes use here at FireJay? They're soooooooo silly! We can't quite match up with the juggernauts of the absurd label world like Kissing Suzy Kolber, but I think we do alright for ourselves. I think for this post I'll re-use a couple of the wackiest ones we've already got, just for the hell of it. Get ready to laugh at something that's not really overly funny!

When Anecdotal Bullshit Goes Horribly Horribly Wrong

"Anecdotal bullshit" is a phrase that gets bandied about FireJayMariotti quite a bit. (A phrase that, sadly, is rarely bandied about is "bandied about".) I originally used it in reference to a Dr. Z mailbag in which he made a completely anecdotal claim about Terrell Owens quitting on routes, a claim I had never so much as heard before and one which he didn't so much as back up with one example. It was both anecdotal (insofar as Dr. Z didn't even attempt to defend his statement with anything else but his claim to authority) and bullshit (insofar as it didn't pass the smell test--Terrell Owens has been bashed for many things, as far as I remember, throughout his career, but I never once heard his onfield commitment questioned).

That's not to say Dr. Z is wrong. I really don't know whether Terrell Owens has never quit on a route since I have not seen every single play of every single game TO played. However, in order for me to buy some out-of-left-field claim, I expect a little more than just say so.

With that said, here's the latest example of anecdotal bullshit from one of Dr. Z's colleagues on the SI.com blogosphere. Andrew Perloff, whom I believe this site has tackled before, has a theory. A very counterintuitive and outlandish theory that none of the superstars from the Minnesota Vikings powerhouse offense of the late 90's-early 00's were really all that good. Anyone who remembers watching Randy Moss and Daunte Culpepper play during that time period remembers them as a dominating tandem in the NFC North---something they could have found to be true both in the statistics column, the win column, and in myriad highlight reels of Moss and Culpepper's heroics.

So how does Perloff decide to make his wildly outrageous and contrarian point? You guessed it! ANECDOTAL BULLSHIT!

I have a theory that will be put to the test this
season: You can't trust any player's statistics from the 1998-2004 Vikings.

This is a vague and rather innocuous opening. Of course you can't completely trust a player's statistics. Hell, before Peyton Manning won his first Super Bowl people would claim (rather idiotically) that you couldn't trust even his mind-blowing stats because he didn't do what QB's are supposed to do.

Probably wrong, but besides the point--because Perloff goes on to take this in an unbelievably absurd direction.

The Vikings' powerhouse offense
produced career seasons for quarterbacks such as Randall Cunningham, Jeff George
and Daunte Culpepper and helped receivers Cris Carter and Randy Moss put up
staggering numbers.

None of those players had any success after
leaving Minnesota. The litmus test will be to see how Moss performs in New
England, although his numbers will almost certainly suffer from the Patriots'
offensive balance. But if he makes a handful of circus touchdown catches I'll
give him the benefit of the doubt.

Ok. So what we have here is:

5 players. Two potential Hall of Famers. One probable Hall of Famer. One Pro-Bowler. One shitty player who happened to have a good year.

Perloff claims that these players prove his point insofar as none of them were successful after they left Minnesota. Let's look at this using any kind of mental brainpower (any being any amount greater than zero, the amount Perloff obviously expended):

Daunte Culpepper has spent an entire YEAR away from Minnesota. He left after sustaining a major knee injury, one he obviously has not recovered from. Some might blame the Metrodome's turf for that. Some might blame the fact that he's like 300 pounds. Some (Perloff) might ignore that fact and pretend like his lack of success has nothing to do with his knee injury and everything to do with the idea that Minnesota makes players look much better than they actually are.

Randy Moss has spent a grand total of two seasons in Oakland, playing for one of the most pathetic offenses in football (they have been in the bottom 3 of most offensive statistical categories throughout Moss's tenure there). Furthermore, Moss is known to quit on his team, and has expressed dissatisfaction at not getting the ball. This doesn't speak highly of Moss's character, but it certainly doesn't support Perloff's point

Cris Carter spent the last year of his career in Miami. THE LAST YEAR OF HIS CAREER. He didn't put up very good numbers, but then again it was THE LAST YEAR OF HIS CAREER. And it's not like he put up very good numbers the preceeding year at Minnesota. He had 73 catches and 6 touchdowns. Wowee. Further, does it occur to anyone (it occurs to me) that perhaps going from playing alongside the best WR in football (Moss) to playing alongside...no one...might have hurt his numbers? Just wondering.

Cunningham spent TWO WHOLE YEARS of the twilight of his career away from Minnesota. They weren't good, but aging QBs' final years rarely are. It's also relevant to note that his last year at Minnesota wasn't particularly good. 8 TDs to 9 INT is not exactly dominant.

And Jeff George. Who the fuck cares about Jeff George?

If Moss is just adequate in New
England and Culpepper has trouble regaining a starting job, this group of
ex-Vikes will be strong proof of the theory that it's the system more than the
players in today's NFL. Something to consider when evaluating Carter's Hall of
Fame chances, although the sure-handed and fiercely competitive receiver seems
like a lock for Canton.

this is just silly. Randy Moss is in his 9th year this year. If he doesn't play well, it just might have something to do with the fact that many WR's don't age well, especially ones like Moss whose whole game was based on speed and agility. Keyshawn Johnson started to bite hard ass by his 9th year. And if Culpepper never recovers from a career threatening injury that ought not prove anything.

This article is mind-boggling. Honestly. Perloff makes a good point in saying:

Of course, I always argue that it's the
system more than the players, and most people usually disagree with me. I just
think it's too big a coincidence that the greatest quarterback and greatest wide
receiver in league history happen to have played in San Francisco at the same
time. Same can be said for the current version of the Colts.

But even that doesn't hold much water. Montana continued to be a solid QB, even at the twilight of his career, with Kansas City. Jerry Rice, up till he was like 50, dominated at WR under Young and the various backups that filled in when Young's brain was bleeding.

Manning is clearly the best QB in the league, but in his early years Harrison clearly made him better. Now Manning makes Harrison better. It's not that hard to see. No one would have ever said that in Manning's first 3 years (when Harrison actually was one of the best WR's in football) that Manning was the best QB in football. Now, no one ever tries to claim that Harrison is still "the greatest wide receiver in [the nfl]" (he actually said league history...eep).

Furthermore, though Moss was the greatest WR in football at his peak, it's silly to claim that anyone ever said Culpepper was the best QB. Culpepper was a product of the system, no doubt. That doesn't mean that Perloff is right. What it means was much of the Vikings game plan was to get the ball downfield to Moss. Culpepper was great at throwing the deep ball, and moving the pocket on busted plays that developed because of the time required to get Moss downfield. Furthermore, Culpepper was a master at throwing the red zone fade to Moss that was almost a trademark of the team.

Yes a lot of this has to do with "system," but the point is that the system had to do with the fact that Moss was bigger, faster, and a better athlete than everyone else in the defensive backfield. Moss was the system and you can watch game film, read articles about how teams have to fucking gameplan to try to CONTAIN (not shut down, but CONTAIN) Moss, or look at his fucking numbers (which weren't that awful even in the vast wasteland of Oakland).

Christ, it's not that hard Perloff. Buy a clue.