Bill Simmons Has Resorted to Just Reprinting Old Columns at This Point

I've said on repeat that Bill Simmons is out of column ideas. I don't even think he wants to write anymore. He's too busy doing other things like being editor-in-chief of Grantland and working on "NBA Countdown" to write columns. He knows his loyal lemmings like to read his work though, so he has to keep writing for the time being. The good news is that no matter what he writes, his readers will digest and enjoy it even if the quality of the writing feels mailed-in. Today, Bill tries to decide if Rajon Rondo qualifies for the "Ewing Theory" or not. Bill does this by reprinting the original "Ewing Theory" column (with added notes though!) and then updating the article with modern "Ewing Theory" candidates. So rather than just answer the question in the 1-2 paragraphs that a sufficient answer would require, Bill re-posts an old column and then calls it in his Friday column.

When we learned about Rajon Rondo's season-ending injury during ABC's Heat-Celtics game on January 27, every Celtics fan had the same reaction: So long, Puncher's Chance At Making The Eastern Finals.

This is what "every" Celtics fan thought upon hearing the news. Bill speaks for the entire Celtics fanbase of course. Personally, I sort of looked forward to seeing the Celtics offense run with a point guard who doesn't over-possess the ball and can hit a 16 to 19-foot jump shot. It probably wasn't ever the Celtics year in the first place. I think that was clear before Rondo got injured.

We zipped through the seven stages of grief in about 45 minutes, barely noticing that the Celtics were playing better without Rondo.

The proverbial "we" did do this didn't we? No Celtics fan noticed they beat the Heat that very day without Rondo. Only Bill, being the genius that he is, noticed that the Celtics beat the Heat.

I like the wording of this sentence, mostly because it doesn't make any fucking sense. It was found out during the Celtics game that Rondo was out for the year, but Bill claims Celtics fans didn't notice the Celtics were playing better (ridiculous use of italics is Bill's doing) without Rondo. The Celtics had not even played an entire game without Rondo yet, so how was anyone to notice the Celtics were playing better without him? It has been one game without Rondo. That's not nearly enough time to notice the Celtics were playing better without Rondo.

And somewhere along the line, more than a few Celtics fans e-mailed me or tweeted me the same two words.

Ewing Theory???

This deserves an entire column three weeks after Rondo went out with this injury.

Had I gotten another dog between 2010 and 2012, I absolutely would have named him "Rondo." That's my dude. Other than Larry Legend, he's the most original basketball player I have ever watched on a day-to-day basis. There will never be a Rondo 2.0.

Bill has already said a few things he can't take back. He should take a break for a minute and not get so carried away. I think calling Rondo the most original player he has ever seen on a day-to-day basis probably qualifies as a statement he will at some point wish he could take back.

Then Bill starts criticizing the player he claims to love. Of course, because he basks in misery and even the most original player he's seen on a day-to-day basis makes Bill sad sometimes, he has to tell us about all the things Rondo does wrong so we feel like he is just a little bit tortured.

Basic Cable Rondo gets bored easily. He pads his assist totals just to see if he can. He goes entire games without ever driving to the hoop or drawing a foul.

Don't you hate it when your favorite team's point guard is always looking for assists and finding ways to help his teammates score? How annoying!

But National TV Rondo? Sweet Jesus do I love that guy. He's a walking triple-double. He's a beast. He's one of the best eight or nine players alive.

But he's only in the Top 20 best players alive or dead. The corpse of Wilt Chamberlain, now that guy is a baller.

You could give National TV Rondo four mediocre teammates and he could hang with any contender. Shit, that's practically what happened in the Eastern finals last spring — Garnett and Pierce were worn down from the shortened season, so was Ray Allen, and nobody else on the team was worth a damn except Brandon Bass.

All you need to know about Bill Simmons is that he thinks giving National TV Rondo four mediocre teammates would be the same thing as giving Rondo three older Hall of Fame teammates and Brandon Bass. Sure, that's the same thing.

Defenses played Rondo for the pass on every drive and fast break, turning the streak into something of an ongoing detriment. I loathed the streak. It was a bad look for Rondo — you don't want your leader chasing numbers, even something as seemingly benevolent as assists.

(checks clock to see how much time has passed)

Isn't there a message board where Bill could post this? It seems sort of like message board whining to me. Bill uses italics for emphasis, seems to be whining about Rondo's historical achievement, and I'm just surprised he doesn't start using all caps to help make his point.

You know what happened next. They reeled off seven straight Rondo-less victories to the delight (and semi-confusion) of their just-when-I-thought-I-was-out-they-pull-me-back-innnnnnnnnn fans. Somewhere during that time, we realized two things.

What did "we" realize, Bill? You speak for the entire Celtics fanbase and probably NBA fans all over the globe, so tell us what the fuck "we" all thought.

1. We're not ready to say good-bye to no. 5 and no. 34 yet. Can't trade them. Can't trade them. Can't trade them. Celtics for life.

This is true except for the fact Kevin Garnett isn't even close to being a Celtic for life since he was originally drafted by the Minnesota Timberwolves and played a decade in Minnesota. So no, he's not a Celtic for life.

Our eyes weren't deceiving us. The Celtics moved the ball dramatically better without Rondo, to the point that Steve Kerr texted me that they suddenly reminded him of Popovich's Spurs.

"To the point" Steve Kerr texted Bill, as if Steve Kerr texting someone is the point at which we know something is true or not.

(Person #1) "The Heat won the NBA Title last year, right?"

(Person #2) "I'm not sure, Steve Kerr hasn't texted me yet to say whether this is true or not."

And these guys like playing with each other, which wasn't always the case.

It's the return of ubuntu!

You know who explained the post-Rondo Celtics better than anyone?

Let me guess...you? Jimmy Kimmel? Cousin Sal? Your dad? House? Hersch? Shoebox? JB?

(Okay, those last three names may or may not have been fake names of Simmons friends, but I'm betting he has one friend he calls "JB.")

Kevin Garnett.

Did he call the Celtics cancer patients before Rondo went down and now claims they have been cured of this cancer?

That's what happened here. The Celtics fell into a collective rut with Rondo, for a variety of reasons, and only when Rondo disappeared did they realize it. They made the appropriate fixes. 

They keep chugging along. Fair or unfair, they look like the Celtics again.
Which raises the question …
 
Does this mean Rondo was a Ewing Theory guy?

The only real way to figure out if Rondo is a Ewing Theory candidate is to reprint most of the original Ewing Theory column and make new half-hearted notes below each sentence. Plus, it's very old school for Bill to use one of his own theories to dissect his Boston teams. It fits perfectly with Bill's perception the world revolves around his ideas and his favorite teams. I just wish Bill hadn't decided to reprint most of an old column in trying to be old school.

For the answer, I thought we'd dive into my original Ewing Theory column, which ran on ESPN.com in May 2001 … just a few months before the single best Ewing Theory moment of all time happened. (We'll get to it.) The original column is in bold. My 2013 remarks are in regular font.

Bill's original Ewing Theory column will run in bold italics and his new comments will run in just bold. It makes sense to review the Ewing Theory a little bit here, but not to the extent Bill reviews it. It takes up a solid 60-75% of this column. This is basically a re-print of the Ewing Theory column with new footnotes added in.

It's bigger than the "SI Jinx." It makes the "Curse of the Bambino" look like child's play. It's creepier than the "Curse of the Spinal Tap Drummers" and the "Curse on the Careers of Everyone Who Leaves NYPD Blue" combined.

The Ewing Theory outlasted everything except the Curse of the Spinal Tap Dummers. The SI cover jinx stopped mattering right around the same time that Sports Illustrated stopped mattering as much.

Says the guy who works for ESPN and has absolutely no credibility when it comes to giving an opinion on this matter since he used to write for ESPN the Magazine. ESPN the Magazine is a "hipper" rip-off of Sports Illustrated. If Sports Illustrated doesn't matter anymore than ESPN the Magazine has never had relevance, unless you want to count trying to rip off the swimsuit issue with the Body Issue. Sports Illustrated isn't what it used to be, but they still break investigative stories in the magazine and people still subscribe.

Q: What's the Ewing Theory? Where did it come from? The theory was created in the mid-'90s by Dave Cirilli, a friend of mine

I somehow lost touch with Dave Cirilli. Unacceptable.

In fairness to Bill, Dave Cirilli probably doesn't live in California and he isn't famous, so Bill really has no reason to stay in touch with Dave Cirilli. If you aren't famous or haven't been mentioned in Bill's columns repeatedly, there's no need for you to pretend you ever even knew Bill nor a reason for him to keep in touch with you.

Ewing was only the CATALYST for the theory, and it was as simple as Dave wondering, "Do Ewing's teams always seem to play better when he's on the bench, or am I crazy?" We should also mention that (a) the '84 Hoyas won the NCAA title, and (b) there's no way the Gold Club trial would have been better without Patrick Ewing.

So basically the Ewing Theory was bullshit, but it was fun bullshit, so Bill stuck with it. We should have known early on that Bill would try to turn fiction into reality in his columns so that he could think of a interesting catchphrase. How could I not see that Bill would gladly turn reality around a bit in order to think of a half-assed theory? Of course in the eyes of many SimmonsClones, if Bill Simmons claims it then doesn't that make the claim true?

How has someone not added "First athlete to definitively prove Dave Cirilli's Ewing Theory" to Donyell's Wikipedia page yet?

It hasn't happened because the world doesn't revolve around you and your theories and truly nobody really cares who proved the Ewing Theory first. Bill clearly wants to show his power by having someone update Marshall's Wikipedia page with this little factoid. As I am writing this, Marshall's wikipedia page still hasn't been updated. Good to see the SimmonsClones have some sense of pride. If Bill wants it updated, update it himself. Of course if he updates the Wikipedia page he won't get a sense of pride and power from having told someone else to do it.

My gut feeling on Rondo's 2013 case: If we're measuring it just by those two elements, then no, he's not eligible. The Celtics enjoyed too much success with Rondo. And they DID win the title with him. I don't think he qualifies. You'll understand why as we keep going.

So not only does Bill reprint most of his original Ewing Theory column, but the answer on whether Rondo is a Ewing Theory candidate or not can be wrapped up and answered pretty quickly. He probably doesn't qualify and so the Celtics good performance with Rondo gone can't be attributed to the Ewing Theory. We have our answer and time to move on. But no, Bill has to keep re-writing an old column in order to keep up the illusion he still gives a shit about writing columns.

That really happened. I swear. The karma for me being briefly excited that someone tore his Achilles tendon is going to come back and bite me at some point, almost definitely at USC's Lyon Center as I'm chasing after some 20-year-old around a double screen.

By the way SimmonsClones, this is a little reminder Bill plays pickup basketball at the Lyons Center on USC's campus if anyone wants to come out and watch him play or discreetly try to get a peek of him playing. So if you want, come on out and make Bill feel important by recognizing him publicly.

Had Jeff Van Gundy's crew shocked the Spurs in the Finals without Ewing, Dave might have his own line of "How-To" videos out right now. (A Knicks upset was simply too tall of a task against Duncan and Robinson, Ewing Theory or no Ewing Theory.)

This is otherwise known as "to ensure the theory is 100% bullshit we will pick and choose AFTER THE FACT when the theory will or won't work." If the Ewing Theory were real, doesn't this mean the Knicks should have beaten the Spurs in the NBA Finals without Ewing?

The Mariners kept it going through the first round; the Red Sox fell apart in sections, cementing their legacy as the Most Unlikable Modern Red Sox Team for a good 10 years until the Fried Chicken & Beer Boys zoomed past them.

What else do the 2001 and 2011 Red Sox teams have in common I wonder? Oh yeah, they are both Red Sox teams that didn't make the playoffs. As I said when Bill wrote his column about baseball being boring now (because the Red Sox were boring, this of course meant all of baseball was boring), it's never a coincidence when Bill dislikes a team and that team just happens to not make the playoffs.

6. St. Louis Rams, 1999
 
Starting QB Trent Green tears an ACL during the preseason. Given up for dead, the Rams rally behind former Arena League football star Kurt Warner and win the Super Bowl, which might be the most unbelievable thing that ever happened.

Confused by two things here: Why did I include the '98 Wildcats when the '96 Wildcats also won the title? And why didn't I play up the '99 Rams more? Now THAT was a Ewing Theory team — post-Green injury, they were fetching 300-to-1 Super Bowl odds in Vegas. 

This violates the rules of Bill's Ewing Theory. Trent Green wasn't a star when he went down with the ACL injury. He had been in the NFL for two years and 1999 was his first season with the Rams. He wasn't a star and he didn't get inordinate amounts of media attention on that Rams team. This was a Rams team with Marshall Faulk and Isaac Bruce, by the way. So Trent Green going down violates the "star rule" of the Ewing Theory. Of course, why should I expect Bill to follow the rules he himself sets out to make? Bill is above his own rules.

All right, I'll bite. Remember, we're targeting stars on teams that haven't won anything, as well as teams that would probably be written off without the stars we're about to mention:

Hold onto your seats, this is about to get fun.

"Hey everyone, let's talk about what a good writer I used to be before I decided starfucking and spending inordinate amounts of time up my own ass was a better career path for me."

Drew Bledsoe: Every Patriots fan is nodding right now.

Bill got Drew Bledsoe right and then proceeded to miss every single one after that. Well, Bill doesn't think he missed every single one after that, but he did.

Pete Sampras: This one makes sense, if you think about it. Taking Sampras out of the men's tennis equation could make Wimbledon more interesting and allow younger, more charismatic players to rise to the forefront.

Bammo! Federer and Nadal! BOOM! I'm 2-for-7.

Okay, no. Bill can't take credit for saying the entire sports of men's tennis is part of the Ewing Theory. Younger and more exciting players always come along in the sport of tennis. The very nature of men's and women's tennis is cyclical like that. There can't be a Ewing Theory for an entire sport anyway.

If I can go four for my next 17, I can be the MVP of this column.

A 6-for-24 joke. It was old after the second time Bill told one and it isn't getting any better now. It just makes Bill seem more and more bitter.

Then when discussing Ewing Theory candidates he wish he had thought of, Bill included this one...

Jim Harbaugh and Andrew Luck — Let the record show that the 2012 Stanford Cardinal shocked an undefeated Oregon team (giving Alabama a second life and leading to an Alabama–Notre Dame title game), then won the Pac-12 title and the Rose Bowl … and neither Harbaugh nor Luck have won anything yet.

This is 2013 Bill Simmons saying this while fully knowing Jim Harbaugh has taken the 49ers to the NFC Championship Game and the Super Bowl in his first two seasons as their head coach. Andrew Luck played pretty well for a rookie in helping a 2-14 team make the playoffs. The Rose Bowl is impressive, but taking a team to the NFC Championship Game two years in a row is at the very least the NFL equivalent to winning the Rose Bowl. Come on. How can Bill say Harbaugh nor Luck have won anything yet? It's hard to compare college football and the NFL as it is, but I think Harbaugh and Luck are doing pretty well for themselves. Luck and Harbaugh have been in the NFL for three years combined and made three playoff appearances combined. Bill is always terrible when he even tries to discuss college sports. He's consistently over his head when not discussing the NBA or his favorite teams.

What a dumb comment. When I said Bill's old column takes up 60-75% of this "new" column, I was not exaggerating. Remember this column is being re-posted because Bill wants to find out if Rajon Rondo is a Ewing Theory candidate or not.

Spoiler alert: We only get one more sentence about Rondo and whether he is a Ewing Theory candidate. It sounds like this column was written more for the purposes of not having to do another mailbag. There's very little original material in here other than Bill commenting on his old columns...not that Bill has run out ideas of course.

And now, without further ado, the Ewing Theory Power Rankings — a.k.a., our best bets to become Ewing Theory candidates at some point during the rest of this decade. Even if there's no way to predict this stuff, I'm still predicting it. In no particular order …

George Lucas — You know, if J.J. Abrams invigorates the Star Wars franchise.

This doesn't count. Anybody who watched Star Wars I-III (who isn't 3-10 years old, because those movies were made for kids and kids love those movies) knows that George Lucas is not on top of his game right now and wasn't on top of his game when he made those movies. I almost expect J.J. Abrams' "Star Wars" movies to be better than the last three movies by Lucas. So I don't see Ewing Theory potential.

Brody in Homeland — Had they killed him off after Season 1, there would have been major Ewing Theory possibilities. FYI: There's still time.

This is kind of a cheat since the possibility of Brody being killed off has been present during the entire run of "Homeland" and the writers had a good chance to write him off after the end of Season 2 if they chose to. "Homeland" is a show that seems built to exist without Damian Lewis and built around Claire Danes and Mandy Patinkin.

David Stern — Kudos to the Commish because he sniffed out his own Ewing Theory potential, then decided to hang on through February 2014 until the league was in good enough shape that nobody could say, "Things turned around because Stern left!" Yet another reason why he's one of the smartest dudes in sports history.

Yes, David Stern held on as Commissioner of the NBA simply so that he wouldn't be a Ewing Theory candidate. Also, what is to stop the NBA from having a fantastic five year run after Stern retires? Wouldn't that possibly cause him to still be a Ewing Theory candidate? Does Bill believe February 2014 will be the absolute peak of the NBA's existence or something?

Rajon Rondo — Only if the Celtics make the 2013 Finals. And only then.

And that's all we get. Bill re-printed his entire Ewing Theory column in order to decide if Rajon Rondo has Ewing Theory potential, only to give his readers a one sentence answer. I thought Bill's column that contained television screengrabs from a regular season Knicks-Celtics game was Bill's low point in creativity, but I think re-printing his Ewing Theory column under the guise of determining if Rondo was a candidate for this theory is probably rock bottom at this point.

Bill Simmons — Here's how I could get foiled by my own favorite theory in two steps:

If anything, Bill Simmons has jumped the shark since he is now a parody of himself. I don't see how he is a Ewing Theory candidate. The idea Bill thinks he could be a Ewing Theory candidate does give a little insight into how large his ego is. Remember the Ewing Theory is what happens when a big star who gets inordinate amounts of attention is removed from a team. So basically Bill is stating he thinks of himself as a big star who gets inordinate amount of attention. While I agree with him getting too much attention, especially considering how knowledgeable he is about sports outside of the NBA and his favorite teams, this statement is verification that Bill's massive ego causes him to believe he is a big star.
 
1. I get fired for saying something totally inappropriate/offensive on live TV during NBA Countdown.

Because Bill is off the chain when it comes to being a rebel. He's super-crazy guys. You never know when he might say something totally inappropriate/offensive on live TV. He may say something passive-aggressive towards ESPN or even continuously bash a head coach only to immediately back down when he meets that head coach face-to-face. We all know how brash and inappropriate Bill can be until confronted by those he is brash and inappropriate towards.

2. Grantland takes off with new editor-in-chief Rembert Browne.
(Gulp.)

If I were jaded, I would think this entire column was an excuse to remind us that he is the editor-in-chief of Grantland, but most likely it is just what it seems. The result of a columnist not having the time to think of new, good column ideas or simply a case of him being out of new, good column ideas.