Monday, July 2, 2012

4 comments Bill Simmons and Chad Ford Debate Who is the Biggest NBA Draft Expert Part 1

There is no such thing as an NBA Draft expert really. Some writers have more knowledge based upon their NBA sources and access to certain information, but in the end it is all a guessing game about which team will draft each player. When discussing the NBA Draft, it is helpful to have watched the players about to be drafted when they are in college in order to properly attempt to evaluate their talent. There are certain players I haven't seen play as much, so I'm not as confident about their abilities one way or another as I am concerning other players I have seen play more. As luck (for those who would be stupid enough to hire an amateur like me), I don't get paid to evaluate the NBA Draft. Neither does Bill Simmons, though I'm not sure he realizes this.

It seems Bill watched the NCAA Tournament and then felt prepared enough to have a debate with Chad Ford about each player's NBA prospects based on (presumably) only watching the NCAA Tournament. I say "presumably" because he only references having seen these NBA prospects play in the NCAA Tournament. By having Bill discuss the draft with Chad Ford, it makes it look like Bill knows something about these college prospects equal or close to Chad Ford's knowledge about these prospects. This really isn't true. It seems he only watched these guys play in the NCAA Tournament and believes this allows him to discuss each player's chances of NBA success. This is the same guy who was high on Cole Aldrich because he saw him play well during one game in the Big 12 Tournament. He wants us to forget that.

By setting up a "discussion" in a debate format of the NBA Draft with Chad Ford, it seems like Bill is more of an expert on these players than he truly is capable of being. This isn't a case where Chad Ford is providing information on these NBA prospects, it is a debate-discussion format where Bill is presented as something of having equal knowledge to Chad Ford and he will challenge Ford's perceptions of a player based on a four or five game sample size over three weeks. It irritates me. I have no problem with Bill discussing the draft with Chad Ford. I do have a problem with him attempting to come off as an expert on these NBA prospects to the point he could debate ESPN's draft "expert." Watching three weeks of basketball doesn't mean you can debate an NBA Draft "expert" concerning the draft. This is the fourth time these two have had a pre-draft debate and it never fails to annoy me.

So for the fourth time, Bill Simmons debates Chad Ford about NBA prospects prior to the draft. Bill makes jokes when he doesn't really have anything to add to the discussion and it is quite clear he has no experience with watching these players other than having watched the NCAA Tournament. Bill (and apparently Grantland) believe since he is an NBA fan, he doesn't need to watch anymore than three weeks of basketball to evaluate these draft-eligible players. I apologize in advance to the SimmonsClones for saying anything negative about your idol.

I wanted to get this posted before the draft, but didn't get the chance. I am posting it in two parts because it would be really, really long otherwise. Also, the picks go to #22 because the Celtics picked #21 and #22 and since it is Bill's Grantland site he has to continue the appearance the world revolves around the Celtics and the draft picks they make.

SIMMONS: Chad, I can't believe you wanted this back-and-forth so badly that you agreed to play a road game on Grantland. Don't you realize I'm going to get every call? You might as well be playing in Miami with Danny Crawford, Marc Davis and Gloria Estefan officiating. If I don't like any of your arguments, or if I feel like you're making me look like a schmuck at any point, I'm just going to have one of my editors either sabotage that paragraph or delete it altogether.

This really isn't a joke. Bill would do this. He hates being wrong. It really hurts his ego to know there is even the slightest chance he could be wrong about something.

For example, as he once again touts his Durant over Oden prediction, Bill forgets all of these NBA Draft misses. We don't hear much from Bill about his big Okafor over Howard pick do we?

SIMMONS: No, we're going to skip right to the following year … when you mocked me for picking Kevin Durant over Greg Oden! Woo-hoo!!!!!!! I can live off that one for the next 30 years!!!

What's more important than the fact Bill chose Durant over Oden is the reason why he favored Durant over Oden. It is because Oden walked like an old man. Maybe Bill is a medical doctor and could foresee Oden's future knee injuries or maybe Bill is full of shit and his observation led him to luckily get this prediction correct. I'll let you decide.

Let's look back at Bill's great "Durant over Oden" victory. Bill did a breakdown in that column and ended up giving the slight edge to...Oden. Bill does say Durant could be better by being passed over as the #1 overall pick and a few years down the road we may think Durant should have been the pick (which is what happened). We've heard again and again from Bill about him liking Durant over Oden because of how Oden walked like an old man. Bill fails to mention he said the following comments about Oden before the 2007 NBA Draft:

Worst-case scenario, Oden is the next Zo, averaging a 20/10, defending the rim, spearheading some 50-win seasons and, we can only hope, starting a brawl that leads to a Van Gundy brother hanging on his leg.

Face it: No GM has the testicular fortitude to pass up a potential superstar center, not even for someone as potentially game-changing as Durant. If you want to compete from now until 2020, take Oden. Simple.

For Oden, it's world-class athletic ability that ranks with Hakeem's, David Robinson's and that of every other guard trapped in a center's body.

Apparently that was world-class athletic ability Oden had which made him walk like an old man and caused Bill to worry about Oden's world-class athletic ability causing him to get hurt a lot. My point is that you can tell from that article Bill loves Kevin Durant, but he didn't hate Greg Oden nearly as much as he wants us to believe he did.

Picking first for the New Orleans Hornets with no chance of this being vetoed whatsoever, I'm selecting Anthony Davis, a.k.a. "The Brow."

Here's my question for you, Chad: How untouchable is this pick? Would you say …

A. "Completely and utterly untouchable."
B. "Untouchable."
C. "Untouchable … but we're not hanging up."
D. "It can be touched."

FORD: It's A, Bill.

If you don't think Bill Simmons is coming back with an absolutely absurd trade scenario in a desperate attempt to prove Chad Ford wrong...well, you just haven't read enough Bill Simmons columns.

SIMMONS: Really? Let's say Cleveland called them and said, "We'll give you Kyrie Irving, our no. 4 pick and Anderson Varejao for the Brow and Rashard Lewis's Expiring Contract That Can't Be Traded For Two Months."


For the record, I would turn that one down if I'm the Hornets … but I WOULD have a meeting about it.

Despite having this meeting, the Hornets would turn the trade down, thereby further proving the #1 overall pick is potentially untouchable. Having a meeting about this trade means absolutely nothing.

FORD: Cleveland did offer the Hornets the fourth pick, the 24th pick, the 33rd and 34th pick and got hung up on. I'm told they would put Tristan Thompson (their no. 4 pick last year) in the deal, too. Nothing.

Ok, now we're just talking crazy. Tristan Thompson, the #4 pick, the 24th, 33rd and 34th pick? You guys can talk shit about me behind my back, I'm close to taking that trade if I'm the Hornets. The issue is with how the draft fell, I would miss out on Kidd-Gilchrist or Beal at #4. So knowing what I know now I probably wouldn't take the trade unless I really liked Thomas Robinson. On draft day, when it looked like Kidd-Gilchrist could fall to #4, this is a trade I possibly would have taken. I take Zeller at #10. Then I try to package the 24th pick with the 33rd/34th pick to get back up in the first round. Say I get back up to #15 or so, then I try to get Moe Harkless or Terrence Jones. Then with the second round pick I hope to get Tyshawn Taylor or Will Barton if he falls that far. I realize I just turned into a rosterbator on everyone, but prior to the draft this is a trade I would look at really hard if I was the Hornets. Of course, I'm not sure I would have the guts to actually make the trade.

Even if they offered Kyrie, I don't think the Hornets budge. Big men like Anthony Davis come along once or twice a decade. I think there's only three players in the NBA right now that teams WOULDN'T trade for Davis: LeBron James, Kevin Durant and Chris Paul.

I love Anthony Davis, don't get me wrong, but that's crazy. I think Davis can be a perennial All-Star, but this is a pretty deep draft as well. Making the right trades with the right draft choices could turn a team around pretty quickly. There are three players in the NBA teams wouldn't have traded for Davis? Only three?

SIMMONS: Damn, this dashes my plans for the next fake trade I wanted to throw at you: Boston getting Davis for JaJuan Johnson and the no. 21 and no. 22 picks.

This is lunacy. No one wants to trade the #1 overall pick for Johnson and two mid-range draft choices. Bill is smarter than to believe this is realistic. I hope he's being sarcastic about this, but my sarcasm meter isn't blaring.

FORD: Most of the players his age were high school seniors last year. He really has skipped ahead a year. I wrote yesterday that Kidd-Gilchrist "just might be a Gerald Wallace clone, or he might be a saner version of Metta World Peace. But if we are talking ceilings, I think his is Scottie Pippen. Pair him with an elite scorer, and I think he'll have a few rings by the time he retires." Do you agree with that?

Bill: "Sure, I do. I saw him play in the NCAA Tournament this year and he was great in all of those games. I will also make the comparison to Scottie Pippen like you did in an effort to make it seem like I know what I am talking about."

SIMMONS: Chad, this pick makes so much sense that I can only assume you mistakenly thought MKG was Slovenian. Everyone keeps saying there's no "sure thing" in this draft after Davis. Why isn't MKG a sure thing?

I'm judging every lottery pick in this draft by one question: "Could you have played in that insanely athletic 2012 Finals I just watched?"

Logic would dictate you must compare every lottery pick to an arbitrary standard that Bill just invented on the fly. Every NBA Finals from now on will contain only insanely athletic players like Mike Miller, Shane Battier, Kendrick Perkins, and James Harden. There are no exceptions to this new rule, so every NBA prospect has to be evaluated as to whether he could have competed in the 2012 NBA Finals.

He'll figure it out. I agree with you — Pippen is the right comparison here.

Game-wise, I think the better comparison is a sane, way more athletic Ron Artest...if we must make a comparison.

You stick someone on your team who cares that much and everything else will fall into place. Eventually.

You heard it hear first everyone! At some point, it will all fall in place for Michael Kidd-Gilchrist. It may happen when he is in his 10th year in the league, but at some point, it all will fall in place. I can't wait to see Bill Simmons take credit for this vague prediction ten years from now when Kidd-Gilchrist is the second man off the bench on a championship team.

If Barnes goes over Kidd-Gilchrist, we might as well eliminate college basketball as a device to scout potential NBA prospects. Seriously. Let's just dump it. We'll save tens of millions on travel and DVD expenses.

Yes, but didn't watching college basketball allow NBA scouts to see that Kidd-Gilchrist is better than Harrison Barnes? College basketball wouldn't be the issue here, it would be bad scouting by NBA teams. Fortunately this didn't happen, so we can keep college basketball around. Thank God. We know college basketball is only around to serve as a method of seeing potential NBA prospects.

FORD: If Kidd-Gilchrist falls to the Warriors at seven, I think they make the playoffs in 2013.

Let's not go overboard here. Kidd-Gilchrist could be a great NBA player, but even he can't necessarily help the Warriors make the playoffs.

SIMMONS: That's not fair. You just got the Warriors fans' hopes up — they're sitting there reading this piece and minding their own business, and out of nowhere, you set them up for yet another massive disappointment. The poor Warriors fans even get stomach-punched in hypothetical NBA drafts.

Golden State Warriors fans are so tortured! Just like Zombie Sonics, Suns, Clippers, Timberwolves, Bucks, Celtics and Hawks fans!

Bill Simmons will claim every NBA team's fan base is tortured by the year 2025.

With the no. 3 pick for Washington, I'm grabbing Bradley Beal, the silky smooth two-guard who definitely bought Ray Allen's jumper on eBay. I love this pick even though I watched all four of Florida's NCAA Tournament games and never at any point thought to myself, I'm watching the no. 3 pick in June's draft.

Hey dipshit, maybe you should watch more than four games that Beal played before arbitrarily deciding he doesn't fit your criteria as the #3 pick in the draft. Apparently putting up the following points-rebounds-assists line in the NCAA Tournament doesn't impress Bill:

(Virginia): 14-11-1
(Norfolk State): 14-9-3
(Marquette): 21-6-4
(Louisville): 14-6-4

Those numbers look pretty good to me coming from an 18 year old.

Compare that to "sure thing" Michael Kidd-Gilchrist in the NCAA Tournament who put up the following numbers:

(Western Kentucky): 9-7-2
(Iowa State): 2-7-1
(Indiana): 24-10-1
(Baylor): 19-5-1
(Louisville): 9-4-1
(Kansas): 11-6-1

I'm not sure I see the difference in how Bill sees Kidd-Gilchrist as a "sure thing" NBA player and he didn't see Beal as the #3 overall pick in the draft. Maybe he was watching a different NCAA Tournament from me.

Is it a red flag when the alleged best scoring guard available from college basketball couldn't average 15 points a game or make 34 percent of his 3s?

No dipshit, it isn't a red flag if the kid is 18 years old and plays on a team with Erving Walker, Kenny Boynton, and Patric Young. Beal was the 3rd/4th scoring option on the team. If you watched college basketball during the regular season you wouldn't have to ask this question.

Hmmm … I'm frightened to tell you that Beal's performance in the SEC and NCAA tournament were his best games of the year.
Which isn't really true. Check out Beal's game-by-game statistics. Beal played well during the regular season as well, but again, Bill wouldn't know this because he started watching Beal play in mid-March. This gives him enough credibility to debate Beal's NBA ability with Chad Ford.


How is that an "uh-oh?" He played well in the SEC and NCAA Tournament. Doesn't this mean Beal plays his best when his team needs him to be at his best? Isn't this what Bill had criticized LeBron James for in the past? LeBron not playing his best when his team needed him to be his best? So why the "uh-oh" if Beal plays better towards the end of his freshman year (which is perfectly fucking normal for a freshman to do, which Bill would know had he dedicated himself to watching college basketball instead of pretending he does) as opposed to the beginning of the year?

It would be much, much more concerning if Beal played worse at the end of the year than he did at the beginning of the year.

FORD: The 34 percent on 3s is a valid question for everyone that sees those Ray Allen comps and says … "What the hell?" Here's the thing on Beal — that Florida team was so dysfunctional all season, Beal was playing at small forward, a position he never played before in his life. He was a ballhandling guard in high school who was best creating his shot off the dribble. In Florida they used him as a spot-up shooter.

Everyone thinks that, returned to the right role, he's Eric Gordon 2.0.

I think he's better than Eric Gordon 2.0. Of course I have overly-loved Beal since his senior year of high school.

SIMMONS: I just spent the past 10 minutes watching his YouTube clips, so I'm totally ready to have an opinion here.

Yes, do research AFTER you have given your opinion on a player. If anyone needs further proof Bill Simmons is in no way qualified to discuss NBA Draft prospects, here is that further proof. Bill gives his opinion on Brad Beal as a "Ray Allen-type" shooter. Then when his assumptions about Beal are called incorrect he goes to YouTube to watch Beal play. How does this man get away with discussing topics he clearly knows very little about?

Are we sure Beal is Gordon 2.0? The best thing about Gordon other than his stroke is that he's built like a tank — he loves driving into the paint, bouncing off bigger guys and finishing around the rim.

Beal is four years young, two inches taller and 13 pounds lighter than Gordon. Beal can drive to the rim with success too.

Beal is a few inches taller; really, he's more like a young Mike Miller,

No. Not at all. Miller is a 6'8" small forward and Beal is a 6'5" shooting guard. Eric Gordon is a 6'3" shooting guard. Granted, I didn't go to Holy Cross and ain't so good at math, but 6'3" is closer to 6'5" than 6'8" is closer to 6'5," not to mention Gordon and Beal play the same position. Mike Miller isn't a very good comparison. Of course, Bill tacks-on a joke at the end in order to divert our attention from the fact he's talking out of his ass.

which means we're going to need permission from the Committee of Cross-Racial NBA Comparisons to make that comparison. I just asked them; they said they needed 24 hours.

HAHA!! Great joke. I completely just forgot what we were discussing, which was Bill's intention.

Give me one second to pretend I'm running Charlotte — I need a smoking-hot Cuban fiancĂ©e, a stiff cocktail, a Cuban cigar and five yes-men nodding at everything I say. (Hold on.) And … we're good. OK, here's what I tell Washington — "I'll swap picks with you, but over the next five years, I have the right to swap first-rounders with you one time. Otherwise, I'm flipping Beal to Cleveland for 4 and 24."

I still can't fathom why Bill Simmons isn't a GM. Examples like this show he would just be so damn good at it. It's an unwritten promise to flip draft picks. WHO SAYS "NO" TO THIS?

SIMMONS: Agree with the logic, agree with the pick as it applies to Cleveland … it's just hard for me to believe that Thomas Robinson or Andre Drummond don't have more value than Barnes, someone who legitimately soured everyone following college basketball at least a little last season. (Even three months later, it's hard to shake Barnes's tournament stink — you'd need a full tomato juice bath to do it.)

How about shaking Andre Drummond's season-long stink? That doesn't concern Bill at all? Barnes played most of the NCAA Tournament with Stilman White as his point guard. I do not like Harrison Barnes, but give him a break. He didn't play well in the NCAA Tournament, but at least he played well during the year, which Drummond didn't do on a consistent basis.

You're not making up nearly enough fake trades today, Chad. Did you take too many Fake Trade Beta-Blockers today or something?

No, Chad Ford is just here to talk about NBA prospects in regard to the NBA Draft, not create fake trades in the hopes the readers of Grantland won't realize Chad Ford is 1000% more knowledgeable about the NBA Draft than Bill Simmons is.

FORD: They had Barnes ranked no. 2 on their Big Board all last year, he's good friends with Kyrie Irving and he adds a scorer on a team that needs scorers.

SIMMONS: He's good friends with Kyrie Irving? That changes everything! I definitely want to spend my no. 4 pick on someone who could play video games with my best player.

Really? Bill Simmons, the king of "Team X is playing better because they really, truly, madly, deeply love hanging and playing with each other" is taking the position it is bad for two players who like each other to be on the same team? Nearly all of Bill's Celtics analysis depends on whether the team seems to enjoy or not enjoying playing on the same team. It's nice to be able to change your position depending on what you are trying to prove and have no one call you on it in the comments.

After all, Petrie was the guy who dumped a mildly annoying contract (Beno Udrih) for a mildly disastrous contract (John Salmons) so he could move back three spots and make the worst lottery pick of the 2011 draft (Jimmer Fredette). He's capable of anything.

Worst lottery pick of the 2011 draft? Bill Simmons concerning Jimmer Fredette on February 4, 2011:

Remember, as long as you have one elite skill, you can play in the NBA for 8-10 years. Jimmer can fill it. He won't be a bust. I see him landing somewhere between a homeless man's Mark Price and an extremely poor and almost destitute man's Stephen Curry. Could he eventually carry your second-team offense for six minutes per half? Yes. Could he thrive as a spot-up shooter on the right team? Yes.

Since Bill goes out of his way to show how smart he is about choosing Durant over Oden, why doesn't he say he was wrong about Jimmer? I guess Bill didn't call Jimmer a bust, but wouldn't the worst lottery pick in a draft be a bust, even if you don't use those exact words? All I ask for is a little honesty. Bill jokes about missing on Adam Morrison, but he is quick to chirp when he is right about Durant. He never seriously says, "I missed on this guy" in the same way he seriously says, "I was right about Player X, so take me seriously as an evaluator of talent."

Love the Robinson pick. I'm one who actually thinks he'll be a better pro than people give him credit for.

SIMMONS: Me too. I like him.

He had a really great NCAA Tournament, so of course Bill likes him.

SIMMONS: It's too bad he's not good friends with Kyrie Irving — he could have gone fourth.

So does this mean we are never going to hear any more "These players like each other and that's why they are playing well" bullshit from Bill? Of course not. Next March when the Celtics are 44-17 we will hear about how this team LOVES playing together and they hang out off the court, so this is why this Celtics team is so successful. Maybe Barnes isn't a better pick over Kidd-Gilchrist at #4, but it isn't bad because Barnes and Irving are friends. If anyone would believe this friendship would make the Cavs better, it is the king of ubuntu and the man who explains how if a team high-fives each other a lot that means they really like each other, Bill Simmons.

Let's say Austin Rivers shocked everyone by picking Weber State over Duke last year, then stayed there and torched the Big Sky Conference for the next four seasons. Here were Rivers's numbers in his only Duke season (at age 19).

2011-12: 15.5 PPG, 2.1 APG, 3.4 RPG, 43.3% FG, 37% 3FG.

If this were Brad Beal then Bill Simmons would asking whether we should be concerned the potential #6 overall pick only scored 15.5 ppg and shot 37% from three-point range last year as the best scoring option on a team. But, Bill is trying to prove a point, so he will ignore his criticism of Beal even though it could potentially be used against Austin Rivers as well.

Here were Lillard's numbers at Weber State …

2008-09: 11.5 PPG, 2.9 APG, 3.9 RPG, 43% FG, 37% 3FG
2009-10: 19.9 PPG, 3.6 APG, 4.0 RPG, 43% FG, 39% 3FG
2010-11: 17.7 PPG, 3.3 APG, 3.8 RPG, 44% FG, 35% 3FG
2011-12: 24.5 PPG, 4.0 APG, 5.0 RPG, 47% FG, 41% 3FG

Why take Lillard over Rivers when Rivers is 25 months younger?

Because Damian Lillard is a point guard while Austin Rivers is a shooting guard? Lillard is a willing passer while Austin Rivers likes the ball in his hands to shoot, not pass, and the Blazers want a point guard? Was I not supposed to answer this question honestly? If the Blazers go for Austin Rivers, they are taking a shooting guard. I don't care what anyone says. Rivers has a shooting guard mindset, though he has the passing ability ability to be a point guard. If the Blazers go for Lillard they are taking a point guard, while Rivers isn't quite yet a point guard, and may never be one. I don't see Lillard over Rivers as choosing between similar players.

Rivers had more guys to pass the ball to and he still averaged fewer assists in his freshman year than Lillard averaged in his freshman year. They are different players.

FORD: I just don't see Rivers ever being anywhere near as unselfish or efficient. I think Rivers will be shocked at the athleticism and length at his position. He'll try to do the same things at which he excelled in high school, spend a lot of time on the bench, get into it with his coach and teammates, get traded in a year or two to a desperate team, put up huge numbers for a cellar-dweller for a year or two, make some money, and eventually, teams will realize he can't be the alpha dog on a winning team.

I honestly think Rivers is the one guy I wouldn't touch in the lottery. Too toxic for team chemistry, doesn't have the same physical tools to make it worth it.

I guess we shouldn't wait too long for Chad Ford's application to join the Austin Rivers Fan Club in the mail.

SIMMONS: Speaking of toxic, I can't pass on Andre Drummond for Golden State's no. 7 pick. It's just too perfect. Three months ago, I covered Golden State's 60 steps to push its fan base to the point that owner Joe Lacob got lustily booed on Chris Mullin Night. Quick question: I know it makes too much sense, but if Drummond is the last "blue-chipper" sitting here, why wouldn't the Warriors move backward and grab two first-rounders from Houston (14 and 18) or Boston (21 and 22)?

Because nothing will please the Warrior fan base more than to have the team move out of the lottery because management is afraid of choosing the wrong player at #7. If Bill is really afraid of the fan base's reaction, he should know moving back in the draft to #14 and #18 or #21 and #22 would not have made the fan's very happy. What would make them happy is if the Warriors made a great pick in this spot.

Isn't that what Bill Belichick would do? (Is it too late to bring Belichick into Golden State's war room?)

Then Belichick would move back from 14 and 18 in a very deep draft to get two first round draft picks next year and Warriors fans would hate him forever.

Part 2 coming up next...


Anonymous said...

While I'm not trying to defend simmons, I have seen him multiple times give himself shit for the whole okafor over howard prediction

jacktotherack said...

Isn't that what Bill Belichick would do? (Is it too late to bring Belichick into Golden State's war room?)

Wow, that's incredibly stupid. I'm sure Bill was trying to be half-ass funny with this line, but you can also tell he thinks it's something the Warriors should consider. The problem is building an NBA team and building an NFL team are both so completely fucking different that even jokingly comparing the two is foolish. It makes sense to move down for extra picks in an NFL draft because depth on a 53 man roster is so much more important than it is on a 12 man roster. In the NBA, where one or two stars can take a supporting cast made up of role players to a title it makes ZERO fucking sense to move down! How many all-stars in the last 10 years came from outside of the lottery? I'm way too lazy to check, but I'm guessing not too damn many.

Baht if it wahrked for Billy B and the Greatriots it must be fahkin brilliant. NO ONE DENIES THIS!!

BR said...

The Onion posted a nice little Simmons put down on 06/29 in their sports section. Simmons need to be right is stunning for a 42 year old who mostly talks out his ass.

Bengoodfella said...

Anon, my apologies if I missed that. I haven't read him mock his Okafor over Howard prediction. I don't remember him doing that. Perhaps he did then, so I may have been wrong about that.

Jack, I really hope Bill isn't being serious about that. I never know whether Bill is serious or joking sometimes. He jokes about having a VP of Common Sense, but you can tell he is also serious about that. The whole "I want to be a GM" thing, it seems Bill is actually serious, but he hasn't been completely serious. So I wouldn't doubt he thinks Belichick could run an NBA team. Obviously it is so different and even if Bill is serious, I don't know how he can be serious about this.

BR, I saw that and it was hilarious. It had the right blend of mocking him w/o being mean, while also being incredibly accurate.