12 comments MMQB Review: J.J. Watt: NFL Off-the-Field Behavior Police Edition

Peter King had quite a few thoughts on Percy Harvin in last week's MMQB. He was fine with the Jets giving Harvin a shot at $6 million-plus for the season, because it's only a one year deal and then they can just get rid of Harvin with no cost to them. I mean that's a good point, but what about Peter's whipping boy, Josh Freeman? This also reminds me the Raiders are paying Matt Schaub $8 million this year to sit the bench. Where is Peter's outrage over this like he was outraged over the Vikings paying Freeman $2 million to sit the bench last year? I'm beating the hell out of that horse and promise to stop soon. Peter also discussed Peyton Manning breaking records and had some semi-nonsensical MLB free agency ideas. This week Peter talks about Ben Roethlisberger's record-setting day, asks Russell Wilson if he is indeed "black enough," reveals Dallas has lost the top spot in the Fine Fifteen without having played a game since last week (as of Monday, when Peter wrote MMQB), and reassures his readers he does love the train in the Northeast corridor. Whew, that's a load off my mind.

There was a time when the 4,000-yard passing season was special. In 2005, there were two of them—Tom Brady and Trent Green. In this pyrotechnic season in the NFL, 13 quarterbacks are on pace to throw for 4,000 yards.

The game is changing before our eyes. It has changed.

A few weeks ago I thought Peter allowed Bill Simmons to ghost write MMQB and this week it seems he is allowing Gregg Easterbrook to ghost write MMQB. NFL teams are scoring a lot of points and throwing for a lot of yardage. This isn't really news anymore.

On Sunday, for the first time in NFL history, four players threw for 400 yards or more on the same day. Tom Brady threw as many incompletions, five, as touchdown passes. Ben Roethlisberger and Andrew Luck combined for 922 yards. The day, really, belonged to Roethlisberger. He has transitioned to a brand new wide-receiving corps in the last four years, all chosen in the middle to late rounds (Antonio Brown, Markus Wheaton, Martavis Bryant), and you can see how his comfort level increases with them weekly.

Well, he is a really good quarterback and the Steelers have traditionally (Linus Sweed aside) drafted good wide receivers for their offensive system. Good quarterback and good coaching makes good wide receivers. It's almost like there is a plan.

The Steelers have been alive since 1933,

They are an NFL team that has no beating heart and exists only as a business. They are not alive. Would Peter say that Microsoft has been "alive" for however many years? Would Peter refer to any other business or company as being "alive"? Probably not, and other companies also have human employees working for them just like the Steelers do.

We often forget Roethlisberger when we speak of the great passers in the game.

That's right, Peter was wrong so "we" forget about Roethlisberger when speaking of the great passers in the game. "We" are so stupid when "we" do things like this in the national NFL column "we" write every week.

He’s fearless in and out of the pocket, can make every throw, will always have a chip on his shoulder about being overlooked in the Brady-Manning-Rodgers-Brees conversation of the greats, and produces no matter who’s out on the flank for him.

Honestly, I think part of the reason for this is Roethlisberger's past issues that have resulted in this happening. Plus, he plays the quarterback position different from these other four guys, so he's not seen as being exactly the same by "us."

Pittsburgh has been looking for a bookend for Brown, and they may have found one. Or two. Bryant—a raw 6-4 kid from Clemson who played in the shadow of Sammy Watkins—and Wheaton had been non-factors much of the year until last week, but they combined for 10 catches, 139 yards and three touchdowns against the Colts. Brown is 26, Bryant 22 and Wheaton 23. They’re the future, and the future is now in a division that doesn’t have a dominant team.

Doesn't this feel like the typical Peter King overreaction to a fantastic game by an NFL team? Last week Peter didn't even have Pittsburgh in his Fine Fifteen, yet this week after a great game against the Colts he's talking about how the Steelers have a great receiving group for the future and could win the AFC North. Peter does this every week in MMQB. Whatever happens during that past weekend in the NFL, he overreacts to it. What was once a struggling Steelers team is now a team with one of the great passers in the game and two bookend receivers for Antonio Brown. The overreaction from week-to-week is always fun to read.

As was their quarterback. “A.B. [Brown] would say some things to me in the huddle about the kind of day I was having,” Roethlisberger said, “but I don’t know my stats. I never do. I’ve never been a stat guy. I’m just trying to make plays to help us win.”

Peter eats up this "humble quarterback who doesn't care about stats" shit, while Peter fawns and marvels over the statistics that quarterback has put up. The more humble a player tries to appear, the more Peter eats it up. Peter would retire and become the personal assistant for an NFL player who kneels before Peter and says he isn't very good at football, just wants his team to win, and he has no idea he even plays in the NFL because he doesn't own a television, a cell phone, nor has running water in his house, because all he cares about his playing football.

“Was this the best day you’ve ever had in the NFL, personally?” I asked.
“If you’re a numbers guy—and I’m not—I guess you’d say yes. But I still see two or three plays I left out on the field that bug me a little bit. I can make more plays.”

(Ben Roethlisberger) "I don't know my stats. I never do."

(Peter King) "Let's talk about those stats you don't know. Is this the best day you have had in the NFL, while keeping in mind you have won two Super Bowls which is probably something I should have thought of before asking the question but I won't because I don't give a fuck about asking questions and just want you to provide me with a quote to run in MMQB."

(Ben Roethlisberger) "If you base it on those stats I don't know, yes, this was my best day."

“Why does it have to stop here?” Roethlisberger said he told the team afterward. “Why can’t we keep doing this?”

If I were an asshole who brought up past events that play no part in who Ben Roethlisberger is today then I would re-write this sentence as:

“Why does it have to stop here?” Roethlisberger said he told the girl in the bathroom with him. “Why can’t we keep doing this?”

But I won't do that, because I have family members who are Steelers fans and they are mean to me when I'm mean to them.

In a very strange Week 8, all things seem possible, particularly when you’ve got a great quarterback. Pittsburgh does, and he’s not going to let us ever forget it.

Yes, "we" know what a great quarterback Ben Roethlisberger is now that Peter has informed "us." If only "we" knew prior to Peter informing us of Roethlisberger's greatness. It just sucks that when Peter is wrong or not aware of something, "we" are all wrong or not aware of something.

John Brown has no business doing what he’s doing right now.

No business. None at all. Remember, Peter King has won awards for this type of writing. It's a low bar to clear apparently.

What an absolutely perfect match Brown is with Bruce Arians and his daring ways. Sunday was the first time America got to see it on the national stage, and it lifted the surprising Cardinals to a two-game lead over San Francisco and Seattle in the NFC West at the season’s midway point.

"We" didn't know the Cardinals would be this good! Peter didn't know, so "we" didn't know either.

I’ve told the story of Keim dealing the 20th pick in the draft to New Orleans for the 27th and 91st picks, selecting safety Deone Bucannon at 27 and hoping, praying that Brown would last until the 91st pick.

And because God not only cares about sports, but cares about sports so much that he paid special attention to the Cardinals' prayers being answered in order to help their team win more games, he granted this prayer.

“I remember telling them I’m a very hard worker,” Brown recalled Sunday night. “I told them, ‘I’ll get there and from the first day I’ll follow Larry [Fitzgerald] around and learn everything I have to learn to be a good player.’ I was convinced I could do it. It’s football. And I love football.”

It's pretty impressive, but are there wide receivers who meet with NFL teams and say, "Nah, I'm a lazy jerk who doesn't think he has anything else to learn. I'm not really going to work hard and will probably coast on the talent I perceive that I have. I don't even know who Larry Fitzgerald is." Are there players coming out of college who say this to NFL teams?

Clearly, Philadelphia wouldn’t have expected Palmer to go for it all there; the Eagles would be expecting Palmer to be thinking first down, and just move the sticks.

But that has never been Arians’ way.
“We had three [receivers] at eight yards for the first down,” Arians said later, “but when there’s a touchdown involved in the play, never pass it up. Don’t play scared; play smart.”

Mike Shula says, what about that play we ran a few plays ago? Should we run that one again? If not, which of the 7 plays that I like to run should we run in this situation?

And Palmer, who has learned to take shots even when logic tells him not to, threw a high-arcing bomb way downfield.

I'm just going to try and leave that comment out there since it was considered a compliment to Palmer. Just imagine if "Geno Smith" is inserted in there and then see how quickly this goes from a compliment to a criticism if the play didn't turn out to be a touchdown.

Watching it over his shoulder, Brown gathered it in … just barely, on the tips of both hands. “A Willie Mays catch over his shoulder,” said Arians, even though most of his players would have no idea what he’s talking about. They’re not versed in 1954 World Series history.

Yes, very few people are well-versed in 1954 World Series history like Peter King. I seriously doubt Peter could say who threw the pitch that ended up as a fly ball in Mays' glove without looking it up.

Now for the annual Seattle-at-Carolina game (even though they’re not in the same division) that sets offensive football back to the 1950s.

Then there were the locker-room questions, the ones about Russell Wilson’s leadership, about Marshawn Lynch being on his last legs and not in the team’s 2015 plans, about the hangover from Percy Harvin’s divisive presence. So I touched base with one of the team’s most prominent leaders, safety Earl Thomas, to get an idea of the pulse of the Seahawks.
“I’ve been so much in my zone,” he said, “that I haven’t really followed all that.”

You weren't in your zone when Kelvin Benjamin caught a long pass over you and Richard Sherman two days ago.

That's all I got to give since it was the sole offensive highlight I could point out. Let's move on to the question about whether Russell Wilson is "black enough." The world must know.

I asked him if he’d heard about the Bleacher Report piece that had a teammate saying Wilson wasn’t “black enough,” and about the Chris Mortensen report that Marshawn Lynch wouldn’t be back with the team in 2015.

“I didn’t know those things,” he said. Which puzzled me quite a bit.
“My reaction [to the Wilson story] is that it’s an insult to our race. And Russell is the ultimate competitor. He always works as hard as anyone, and he handles himself with poise. He represents our team and our organization very well. I don’t think there’s any problem with him in our locker room at all.”

For someone who said he didn't know those things, Earl Thomas sure seemed to be right on the nose in response to the Mike Freeman article that he didn't read or know anything about. Earl Thomas must just be really good at guessing what articles are about without actually reading them.

There are also problems down the road. If Lynch understands—and he certainly must have an inkling about it—that the Seahawks weren’t going to pay him the $6.5 million he is due in 2015, never mind a re-done contract, he’s going to be even more enigmatic than normal.

Oh, so I see. Now the story is sports media like Peter King are going to make Marshawn Lynch the bad guy since he liked Percy Harvin and dares to want a contract extension.

Lynch almost cost Seattle the game Sunday. A pass from Wilson went through his hands in the end zone just before the half, and instead of a touchdown, Carolina’s Josh Norman intercepted it. Seattle trailed 6-3 at halftime instead of going up 10-6. It was a stunning miss by the sure-handed Lynch, and Seattle was fortunate to overcome it.

There were like three or four sure touchdowns in that game that were dropped or not caught due to bad passes, but yeah, let's blame Marshawn Lynch for the Seahawks almost losing. Kelvin Benjamin dropped a touchdown in the end zone, Steve Schilling fumbled a snap that led to the Panthers recovering the fumble and Russell Wilson one-hopped a pass (I KNOW! He's not perfect! Who knew?) to a wide open tight end that would have been an easy touchdown. But yeah, let's blame Lynch for almost losing the game for the Seahawks since that's the way the narrative is going.

In the coming weeks, they’ll need Lynch, and it’ll be interesting to see if he throws all of himself into his work knowing his future with the team is very likely a short-term one.

There has to be a bad guy in this story and I guess since Lynch wants a new contract and liked Percy Harvin then he will be proclaimed the bad guy. The foil to Russell Wilson's good guy.

Peter then talks briefly about Brady and Manning facing each other. It's just a story that I've heard plenty about over the years. I'm interested in the game, not the lead up to the game.

The Jets have no choice: They have to start Michael Vick. Geno Smith has lost seven starts in a row. It’s a mercy-yanking—Rex Ryan has to give Vick his shot next Sunday at the Chiefs, and for several Sundays into the future.

Here's a great example of the overreactions from Peter King week-to-week. Two weeks ago in MMQB:

6. I think the best point made about Jets quarterback Geno Smith in the past week came from Jon Gruden, after Smith somehow got the time wrong and missed a meeting the night before the Week 5 31-0 debacle of a loss at San Diego. “You’re playing Philip Rivers, and then Peyton Manning and Tom Brady,” said Gruden, referring to Smith’s foes in Weeks 5-7. “Those guys don’t miss meetings. They run meetings.”

Welp, Smith is no good. He misses meetings and shouldn't (which is true) do this.

Last week in MMQB:

g. Geno Smith going toe to toe with Tom Brady. Smith provided a glimpse of what might be for the Jets. Now he’s got nine games to prove that was legitimate.

Geno Smith had a good game. Maybe he's legitimate and could be a starter for the Jets!

This week it's time to replace Geno Smith. I mention all of this because Peter seems to only react to what Smith has done that previous week and his take depends on what Smith did that week and only that week. Smith had a good game against the Patriots. Is this a sign of the future? One week later Peter wants Smith replaced with Vick.

As one of the nine voters on a subcommittee of the 46-member voting board for the Pro Football Hall of Fame, I wanted to take a few sentences to explain what exactly happened last Wednesday in Washington when we met to select the first two nominees for the Hall in the new Contributors category. We selected former Buffalo, Carolina and Indianapolis GM Bill Polian and Ron Wolf, the longtime Raiders scout, Tampa Bay personnel executive and Green Bay GM.

Polian and Wolf will have to get 80 percent of the vote from the cull group when the Hall voters meet in Arizona to elect the Class of 2015 on Jan. 31, 2015. I love both picks. Franchise architects had always been forgotten before the Contributors category was established earlier this year. As I wrote the other day, Polian built two Super Bowl teams and got an expansion team good in near-record time.

Ah yes, the great Bill Polian that built an expansion franchise for success in record time by signing aging players at the expense of the long-term development of the team, then bailed once he realized shit was going downhill. Definitely a Hall of Fame move. Then he got a promotion, went to the Colts and built that team through the draft. But hey, he did something great one year for an expansion team and that's all that is remembered. Peter King won't ask questions like, "Was Polian's job to build a team that will win now and in the future or was Polian's job to build a team that will win now, get him a chance at a promotion and then use this promotion to bail and leave a mess in his wake?"

I'm fine with Polian being in the Hall of Fame. The whole "built an expansion team in record time" is a tricky issue though. I'm sure a bridge can be built very quickly, but if it breaks after three years should the architect receive an award for building the bridge?

How great was J.J. Watt laying the verbal wood to Tennessee quarterback Zach Mettenberger, after the rookie QB took a few look-at-me selfies? “This is the National Football League, not high school,” said Watt. “Welcome to the show.”

It wasn't great at all you dipshit. Mettenberger took a few selfies with his new haircut and J.J. Watt, who the media absolutely adores, acted immature in mocking those selfies. Mettenberger took selfies, who cares? Of course, this is J.J. Watt, who could NEVER be a hypocrite about taking look-at-me pictures, could he?

Having some fun with @ZooeyDeschanel at the #WHCD last night. pic.twitter.com/F148AKJmjq
— JJ Watt (@JJWatt) May 4, 2014

Never.

Just talkin' sacks with @JJWatt... pic.twitter.com/mjSc1RYrlN
— Katie Aselton (@duplaselton) July 16, 2013

Watt doesn't do that.

Wisconsin folks asking where's the love for the Crew, you know better. #BrewCrew pic.twitter.com/OdIrhN8HYv
— JJ Watt (@JJWatt) April 1, 2014

Because taking selfies is just so immature.

Ditched the treadmills, hit the Champs-Élysées. Morning jog with @DerekWatt34 @_TJWatt #ArcDeTriomphe #HiMom pic.twitter.com/U9CRgXlw23
— JJ Watt (@JJWatt) January 9, 2014

He would NEVER take one.

Suspenders... pic.twitter.com/rsQDnXbsHX
— JJ Watt (@JJWatt) July 19, 2013

Mettenberger needs to stop being all "look at me" in pictures. It's not high school and no one wears letterman jackets in the NFL.

But of course Peter is tickled pink that J.J. Watt has appointed himself the guy who is in charge of making sure everyone knows what is the right and wrong thing to do off the football field. The NFL needs Watt as the Off-the-Field Behavior Police. Peter King loves himself some J.J. Watt too much to actually investigate any hypocrisy on Watt's part.

The Fine Fifteen

The Cowboys were #1 last week and had not played as Peter wrote MMQB. So naturally, they were moved out of the #1 spot. I mean, obviously.

1. Denver (6-1). Now comes the tough part of the schedule. Denver has one home game in the next 41 days. Six road, three home the rest of the season, and the first one’s a battle: next Sunday in Foxboro. Brady-Manning XVI (Brady 10, Manning 5) is Sunday in the late-afternoon window, and Manning enters this duel with the best chance to beat Brady in Foxboro in years.
2. Dallas (6-1). Not a lot of time to breathe easy after tonight’s game with Washington. Arizona comes to Texas next Sunday for the game of the week in the NFC.

This is much like how Peter had Kansas City ranked #1 in last year's Fine Fifteen, then moved them to #2 the week they were playing the Broncos because Peter thought the Broncos would win the game. The Chiefs were the best team in the NFL, until Peter decided they weren't because he thought the Broncos could beat the Chiefs head-to-head...which logically would have made the Broncos the #1 team in the Fine Fifteen even if the Chiefs and Broncos weren't playing that week, right?

3. Arizona (6-1). What a story these Cards are becoming. What a story John Brown is. And what a day Todd Bowles had, sending blitzers from everywhere.

Oh boy, how is Gregg Easterbrook going to make it seem like blitzing is a terrible idea this week? I know! He'll just ignore that the Cardinals succeeded by blitzing.

5. Philadelphia (5-2). If the field is 12 inches wider, Jordan Matthews catches that touchdown inbounds on the last play at Arizona and it’s the Eagles who leave the desert dancing.

But the field isn't 12 inches wider, plus he didn't have possession all the way to the ground so it was incomplete anyway.

8. Cincinnati (4-2-1). Not a very impressive win, all in all, but the Ravens can make a team play ugly. What’s good about this win for the Bengals is they’d been playing in quicksand all month (0-2-1) before Sunday, and sweeping the team that looked like the best in the division (23-16 in Week 1, 27-24 Sunday) puts Cincinnati in the driver’s seat to win the AFC North.

Page 1 of this MMQB had the Steelers and Ravens alongside the Ravens in the AFC North race. Now the Bengals are on the driver's seat on page 3 of MMQB. It's the NFL, things change quickly.

13. Seattle (4-3). Know why that game in Charlotte was such an important win for the defending champs? The Week 12 through 16 schedule for the Seahawks: Arizona, at San Francisco, at Philadelphia, San Francisco, at Arizona.

But when the Seahawks end the season at 11-5 will Peter say "we" counted them out? That's all I want to know.

14. Pittsburgh (5-3). You figure out the team that, in the past four weeks, has lost to Tampa Bay at home, struggled to beat the Jaguars on the road, got routed by the Browns in Cleveland, had the bizarre burst of points to beat Houston at home, and then blew up the Colts (who shut out Cincinnati last week) at Heinz Field on Sunday. You figure it out, because I can’t.

Peter wants us to figure out the Steelers, just like he wants someone else to figure out whether Roger Goodell lied about seeing the videotape of Ray Rice knocking his wife out in an elevator. Peter initially reported on that story and then got called out for bad sourcing, so he'll just give up doing his job regarding that Goodell story. Peter is sure someone else will figure it out at some point.

Offensive Player of the Week
Ben Roethlisberger, quarterback, Pittsburgh. A historic day for the Big One, and not just because he went 40 of 49 for 522 yards—the fourth-most prolific day for a quarterback in the 95-season history of the game—with six touchdowns, no interceptions. Historic, too, for its symmetry. Roethlisberger is now 100-50 in his regular-season professional career.

Yes, the day wasn't historic for Roethlisberger's historic performance, but historic because he now has career symmetry. Now THAT'S true history.

Anthony Barr, outside linebacker, Minnesota. On the first play of overtime in Tampa, Barr stripped fellow rookie Austin Seferian-Jenkins, the Bucs tight end, after a pass reception, recovered the fumble at the Tampa 27-yard line, and rumbled in for the winning touchdown.

Greg Schiano would never have allowed this to happen.

For the game, the precocious linebacker from UCLA had eight tackles, one sack and one pass defensed.

There it is! The word "precocious" makes a return in MMQB after a hibernation of many weeks. Anthony Barr is precocious because he's showing characteristics of a person much older than he really is. He's a rookie and he is tackling opposing players, recovering/creating fumbles, and getting sacks! No other rookie does this. How precocious of him! Peter is surprised Barr even knows what a football looks like.

“Not black enough? I don’t even know what that means. I think I’m an educated male trying to lead this team.”
—Seattle quarterback Russell after the 13-9 victory over Carolina. A Bleacher Report story last week said some veterans on the Seahawks didn’t consider Wilson “black enough.”

This is a good response to the story. I know what "not black enough" means in this frame of reference, so maybe Russell Wilson should get a little more educated about what that means.

“I take my job very seriously, and if I was a rookie quarterback named starter for the first time in the league, I feel like I’d be a little more focused than that. Maybe he’ll learn from it, maybe not.”
—Houston defensive end J.J. Watt, on the perceived pre-game flippancy of first-time starter Zach Mettenberger of the Titans.

Again, while I agree that Mettenberger needs to be more focused on his job, he took a couple pictures and posted them on Twitter. It's not a sin against football and J.J. Watt has plenty of instances on his Twitter account of him interacting and taking silly pictures during the NFL season. So he's a bit of a hypocrite who needs to worry less about looking at the Twitter account of others and more about continuing to dominate the next game. He's not the NFL Off-the-Field Behavior Police and it's not his job to teach other NFL players lessons about how to and not to act when preparing for a game. Don't be a douche.

Of course J.J. Watt fan-boy Peter King loves that Watt is policing other NFL players. Naturally. Peter loves policing how others live their lives as well. Watt is telling other NFL players to be more focused while Watt is cruising the Twitter account of other NFL players and shooting commercials in his spare time.

“Here’s the amazing thing about Peyton Manning: He’s an ascending player at the age of, what, 38 years old? I have never seen a great player on that level ascending at that age.”
—NBC analyst Cris Collinsworth, to me, on Saturday.

I have so much fun with quotes like this. Just insert "Barry Bonds" in there. Insert "Roger Clemens" in there. If a baseball player was ascending at the age of 38 then baseball media would have their pitchforks out ready to declare that player a PED user.

Eddie Vedder, playing a Pearl Jam concert in Milwaukee the other night, wore a Packers No. 10 jersey in honor of the current Packer who wears it—and who was in the middle of the mass of humanity on the floor of the Bradley Center for the show: backup quarterback Matt Flynn.
It’s possible, I suppose, that Vedder thinks Flynn is a Better Man than Aaron Rodgers, more Alive than Clay Matthews, and in Future Days will come off the bench, play like an Animal and lead the Pack Around The Bend to another title.
That’s The End of this horrible note.

Oh God, Peter King is a Pearl Jam fan. Life is ruined for me now.

Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week

Raining hard the other day on the East Coast.

That's how you know this story is going to be good. It starts with a weather update.

I had to go to Washington for a Hall of Fame meeting at a hotel right near Reagan Airport. I chose the train. Left New York at 2 p.m. Got a table/desk and worked all the way to Washington. Train was due into the Washington train station at 4:53. It arrived at 4:55. I walked to the Metro stop at Union Station in Washington and, after a change of trains, got to Crystal City and my hotel at 5:35.

The only thing less interesting than seeing pictures of a person's vacation is getting the play-by-play of a person's travel itinerary. No really Peter, how late was the train? Tell us! Your readers care! MMQB is about you, after all.

Meanwhile, a couple of the other voters got weather-delayed coming into town. It was foggy, windy and rainy.
Just another reason to love the train in the Northeast Corridor, which I do.

Until one day two teenagers are on the train reading iPads and commenting to each other loudly, and Peter can't focus because he is too busy staring intently at them, and he feels the need to be the Northeast Train Behavior Police by remarking in MMQB how loud these two teenagers were being. I think Peter King and J.J. Watt should just go around the country telling individuals how they should and should not behave in public.

TMI Tweet of the Week

If laying in bed in your underwear listening to a high school football game on a Friday night is wrong I don't want to be right
— Ross Tucker (@RossTuckerNFL) October 24, 2014

And because this Tweet was TMI, Peter just has to share it with as many people as possible. I have to say, the thought of Ross Tucker listening to a high school football game in his underwear feels pretty damn creepy to me. Don't Tweet about it or go put some pants on. Otherwise, somebody may get the wrong idea.

Ten Things I Think I Think

1. I think this is what I liked about Week 8:

j. Louis Delmas’ long interception return—the kind of play Detroit never saw enough—for Miami. Brent Grimes also returned an interception for a touchdown in the same game.

But Blake Bortles had a great preseason! He was great in the preseason, there's no way he struggles in the regular season.

m. The rebound of Carolina’s defense, which had allowed 75 points in the previous two games.

It's not like they were playing an offensive juggernaut or anything like that. The Seahawks manage to win games despite having a distinct lack of great offensive weapons. It's fine to give the Panthers' defense credit, but understand the Seahawks aren't exactly trotting out a fantastic offense. They are middle-of-the-pack in yards per game and points per game.

2. I think this is what I didn’t like about Week 8:

What Peter liked about the Lions:

a. Detroit coach Jim Caldwell resting Calvin Johnson and his recovering ankle sprain. Johnson could have played Sunday in London, but he shouldn’t have—not with the bye coming up and the risk of Johnson re-injuring the ankle.

Now what he didn't like: 

d. Whoa: the Lions’ inactives … starting running back (Reggie Bush), franchise receiver (Calvin Johnson), and the top three tight ends (Brandon Pettigrew, Eric Ebron, Joe Fauria).

So I guess Peter likes that Calvin Johnson didn't play, but didn't like that Johnson was inactive? Maybe Peter doesn't like Johnson being too injured to play, but likes that he didn't play?

f. Matthew Stafford missing at least four receivers with low throws Sunday. He was just off his game.

And yet, Stafford wasn't off his game so much that he didn't throw for 325 yards without any of his top three tight ends, his best receiver, and his starting running back. I wonder if Peter thinks that Stafford was off his game because he had very few of his starting offensive weapons available to him? Nah, that couldn't be it.

g. The field at Wembley Stadium, slippery and slipshod, led to a Matthew Stafford interception when the receiver fell down on an incut. “The conditions of this field … were a factor on that interception,” Troy Aikman said, correctly, on FOX.

And despite the only interception he threw not being his fault as well, Peter still thinks Stafford was off. Again, it sounds like there are other factors that contributed to Stafford's performance.

q. How does a defense that reputable give up 37 points in one half of football? To paraphrase Tony Dungy, if Brandon Marshall thought last week was unacceptable, what’s he’s going to think this morning?

Great insight there from Tony Dungy. Maybe he can offer to mentor Brandon Marshall or the entire Chicago Bears defense.

4. I think that Roger Goodell and the Ravens are both wrong, in reference to neither talking to the NFL Players Association’s investigator into the Ray Rice flap (as the Associated Press reported over the weekend). This is supposed to be the most transparent of processes. I think Goodell should have been open with the press about what exactly Ray Rice said to him in the June 16 disciplinary hearing. I think he should be open with the NFL investigator. And I think he should be open with the NFLPA investigation. There should be nothing to hide, from anyone.

Gee Peter, why would Roger Goodell have something to hide though? I can't figure out why. I like Peter taking a hard line against Goodell here, just a couple of months after getting embarrassed by his "sources" who said Goodell saw the videotape and then Peter changing his story once Goodell claimed he had not seen the videotape. I can't figure out why there should be something to hide.

5. I think Shonn Greene channeled his inner Costanza Friday night. And it’s never good to fool around with handicapped parking spots.

Where is J.J. Watt at to teach Greene a lesson about parking in handicapped parking spots? Where's the NFL Off-the-Field Behavior Policeman when he's needed?

6. I think—and I know this is a week old, but I just love the inside-football nature of it, and wanted to share it with you—that the most interesting thing I learned about football in the past few days came from St. Louis punter Johnny Hekker. You recall the Rams’ special-teams-prompted win over Seattle eight days ago, with the Stedman Bailey 90-yard return for touchdown on the misdirection-punt-team play. But the derring-do fake punt with 2:55 left in the game was significantly more risky, and I loved it.

Then Peter spends two more paragraphs marveling over the gutsy play-call and how the Rams coaching staff had the balls to make this call and not give Hekker a lot of time to think about having to throw the football. It's a nice way of recalling a smart play by the Rams while also glossing over the Rams came off a great game against the Seahawks to lay up a turd against the Chiefs. Jeff Fisher taketh, Jeff Fisher taketh away. Peter preferth to focuseth on the gutsy nature of Jeff Fisher and not the fact Fisher took the Rams a step forward last week and then another step back this week.

7. I think we should all prepare for a week’s worth of Manning-Brady fodder, for this Sunday marks the 16^th game matching the two greats. Peyton Manning is just 5-10 versus Tom Brady, and just 2-7 when the game happens in Foxboro.

Oh yes Peter, "we" should prepare for a week's worth of Manning-Brady fodder. Because Peter is just like his readers in that he can't control what Manning-Brady stuff gets written during the upcoming week. He's just along for the ride and certainly would never contribute to this fodder. I enjoy how Peter writes "we" should prepare for this fodder as if he is in no way responsible for contributing to this discussion of Manning and Brady. Peter has NO CONTROL over what gets written on THE MMQB about Manning and Brady over the upcoming week.

10. I think these are my non-football thoughts of the week:

a. Peace be with you, Thomas Menino. The former Boston mayor, such a legend in one of the great American cities, is seriously ill with cancer. Everyone who lives in Boston, or has lived there, has a good Menino story, and mine is this: Soon after I moved to Boston in 2009 (lived there for two and a half years), I wrote about how depressing the littering was there. He saw me at a Little League game in my neighborhood, commented on what I’d written and wanted me to know they’d been working on it. Quite a guy.

Thomas Menino did what Peter King told him to do. What a peach of a guy! He followed Peter's directions so well. I'm sure J.J. Watt would approve.

f. I don’t know why he isn’t the manager of the Cubs already. Perfect spot for him. He’s a great thinker, and he’ll be good for National League baseball.

That sounds condescending as hell. What does "good for National League baseball" even mean? The National League hasn't had any issues winning World Series titles lately, but I do understand Peter is an American League snob.

i. Who’d have thought two of the top five candidates for MVP of the postseason (not just the World Series) would be relief pitchers who are not closers—Yusmeiro Petit of the Giants and Kelvin Herrera of the Royals?

"We" certainly didn't think this would happen. Only some guy in Kansas named Fred thought two of the top five candidates for MVP of the postseason (there is no such thing) would be relief pitchers who aren't closers. Of course, Fred from Kansas also likes National League baseball, so he's an idiot.

l. Coffeenerdness: Thanks for your hospitality this fall, Greenwich (Conn.) Starbucks. I’ve done quite a bit of writing there. Good atmosphere.

By "good atmosphere" I assume Peter means "the atmosphere of a coffee shop." 

n. By the way, not all New Yorkers are cowering because of Ebola. In fact, I haven’t met one.

You haven't met a New Yorker? Don't you live in New York?

The Adieu Haiku

The Chicago Bears.
Looking a lot like the Jags.
Somewhere, Halas weeps.

Somewhere whoever is best known for writing haikus, well, he is weeping too. 

5 comments Bill Simmons Gives the History of His Mailbag...Because, You Know, We Care and All

Bill Simmons does mailbags a lot now. Bill Simmons likes doing mailbags. Bill Simmons gives the history of his mailbags today. I don't particularly care. Because mailbags are Bill's favorite gimmick to use (and they are his favorite because he doesn't have to think of a column idea, which is convenient given the fact he seems to have run out of column ideas), he did another mailbag to go with his NFL Playoffs Divisional Round Picks. As always I will be mocking the SimmonsClones that write the questions and desperately want Bill's acceptance, as well as critiquing Bill himself.

{I am aware this isn't Bill's latest column and are his picks for the Divisional Round. I accidentally posted something else last week when I wanted to post this column, so figured I would rather post this on Tuesday rather than post TMQ on Monday. Bill's column, since it was mostly a mailbag felt less immediate than TMQ does. Plus, I like to give TMQ time to breathe during the week and not post over it too quickly with another long post, so the idea of posting TMQ late Thursday, this post on Friday and then my conference picks before the games on Sunday seemed like a lot of writing in a short time period. I'm just rambling at this point. Look! Something shiny!}

I had a more ambitious plan for my Round 2 playoff column, but my readers sent along so many quality mailbag questions that I didn't have a choice.

(Bill thinking) "Do I have any column ideas this week? I don't think I do. I could sit here and think of an idea or I could simply have my lemming-like readers write in questions and I will respond in a manner that reminds everyone I am the smartest guy in the room at all times. Yeah, mailbag it is."

Quick background on mailbags:

This "quick background" takes up 1088 words by the way. I can't cover it all. I have patience, but not that much patience.

Before my site launched, I sketched out a few running gimmicks that, in my opinion, could definitely work for a frequent online column. One idea was a straight rip-off of one of my favorite David Letterman gimmicks: "Viewer Mail." 

Don't ever think this whole "famous for being a sportswriter who writes like a fan" thing happened accidentally. Bill wasn't just writing and then got discovered for how well he wrote. It's all a plan. He plays the role of writing like the fan and the  mailbags and other gimmicks were part of his plan to get readers. I'm not knocking it, (thinks introspectively) we all play a certain role when we write, but Bill didn't just one day come up with his mailbags, it was a plan to have a running gimmick in order to get noticed. Again, not knocking it, just saying Bill had a plan and his success wasn't all an accident. He wrote in a way to get readers to read what he writes and did an outstanding job of reaching this goal.

I was especially excited for three ideas: I wanted to write a running diary of watching the NBA draft at my dad's house, I wanted to write about the 30 Worst Sports Movies of all time, and I wanted to write a "Viewer Mail" column. But I needed enough decent e-mails to pull it off. I posted my first four columns and stuck my AOL e-mail underneath every one of them, hoping I'd get enough e-mails for an entire "Viewer Mail."

I'm not sure why this story hasn't been turned into a movie yet. Get Aaron Sorkin writing the script immediately. I need David Fincher to direct.

But in 1997 the Internet was a bizarre cross between the Wild Wild West and a maximum-security prison. There were no rules, no accountability, and more incoherent, typo-infested, all-caps e-mails than you can possibly imagine.

Two comments from me: 

1. How the hell is this different from how the Internet is today? This is a perfect description about the Internet in 2013. In 2013, where is there accountability, rules or a lack of trolls at nearly any site you choose to visit?

2. I'm glad Bill is around to tell us all what the Internet was like 1997. Without him, we wouldn't have an idea of what the Internet was like 16 years ago. As I always say, nothing truly exists until Bill acknowledges its existence. He had to tell us what the Internet was like because we are all too stupid in his mind to remember what the Internet was like. Either that or Bill believes he was the only one who used the Internet in 1997.

I thought about calling the first one "Reader Mail" (as a Letterman homage) before ultimately settling on the totally forgettable moniker "Feedback."

This is as opposed to the original moniker "The Boston Sports Guy" and the even more original-pretending-to-be-less-Boston-centric moniker "The Sports Guy." Those are some unforgettably original and non-generic monikers.

Just for unintentional comedy's sake, here was the e-mail (and my response):

MZAMIARA WRITES: You've got it out for the Tiger. Let's see you make that kind of money on your sticky candy-coated couch potato Sega joy stick. Do you get nervous when that pizza man is about to bang on your door when you go to make that 12 foot putt?

SG: Hah! When I'm playing Sega Genesis, I can tune out just about everything — Charlestown parents screaming at their children ("Bow-bby, Maaaaak, Jenni-fah, come he-ahhh!"), the sweltering heat of my 4th floor apartment, the cackling sounds of my roommate as he watches Howard Stern's "E! Television" show, girlfriends leaving nasty messages on my answering machine ("Bill, I think we need to talk … I don't like how you make me wear Larry Bird's jersey to bed every night … "). Let me tell you, the pizza man ringing the doorbell doesn't even faze me. I welcome the distraction.

For God's sake, read that thing again! Did I even write that?

Bill could take the Sega Genesis and Howard Stern reference out of this answer and I would think it was from a 2013 column. Bill has become less creative and more repetitive since 1997, but if he thinks his writing style and jokes have changed that much in 16 years then he isn't very self-aware.

Who was that guy?

That guy is the same guy writing right now. There are differences, but possibly fewer than Bill wants to admit.

We posted the "Feedback" column and … boom! Coherent e-mails started trickling in! The next "Feedback" was significantly meatier. From there, we were off and running. To be clear — I'm not taking credit for creating mailbags or anything. It couldn't have been a more obvious gimmick for an online column.

Bill isn't taking credit for creating mailbags. Not at all. He knows he is the creator of mailbags, but he's not taking credit at this point.

But there was no model to point to in 1997, either. How long should these be? How long should my answers be? Could I make fun of readers within the column, or would they take it personally? Could I use the same person twice in the same column, or would it seem like I was desperate for e-mails? If a reader wrote something offensive, could I still run that e-mail and make fun of it, or was I condoning that e-mail by running it?

Boy, these are tough questions. I say Bill doesn't answer these questions right now and just saves the answers for the inevitable "30 for 30" episode about him and his reader mailbags.

"What if I told you readers could interact with a sportswriter in a way that has never been accomplished before? What if the readers made that sportswriter famous through a symbiotic process where they each justified the other's existence? What if the sportswriter threw the fact he had success beyond his wildest dreams back in the reader's face by bragging about how many famous people he knows and they were too stupid to realize it?"

I have never made up an e-mail simply because I never needed to make one up.

Sure, I believe this. Bill "never" made a question up (wink, wink).

I genuinely love writing them. And actually, I always write them long and end up cutting backward — there's usually 1,000 or so words that get chopped every time.

I'm intrigued by this idea of cutting backwards, as if it is different from editing. What is the alternative to cutting backwards? Cutting forwards? Cutting out words from a column when those words haven't been written yet? So basically Bill is thinking of a creative way (I guess he can still be somewhat creative when he needs to be) to say he edits his mailbags.

This week? We were about 10 e-mails too long. So fuck yeah, we're doing a two-part mailbag before Round Two picks.

He said "fuck." What a rebel. Creating Grantland was totally worth it in order to be able to write down curse words in his columns. It's so edgy you could cut yourself on the printed words.

Q: Why isn't it a bigger deal that Aaron Rodgers is going up against the team that passed on him with their first pick in the 2005 NFL Draft?
—Mike, Oregon, WI

SG: Hmmmmmmmm …

Are you telling me Aaron Rodgers hasn't gone to bed every night since April 23, 2005 waiting for a moment like this give the 49ers a huge F-U? This has the potential to be the biggest revenge story since Arnold in Commando.
— Matt Gullickson, Laguna Niguel

SG: Whoa, video evidence plus a forced reference to a 1980s movie? You know the key to my heart, Matt Gullickson.

Self-awareness does no good if it doesn't result in any type of change. Plus, it was considered a pretty big deal that Aaron Rodgers was going against the team that passed on him with the first pick and right near the hometown he grew up in as well (not really, because supposedly Aaron Rodgers grew up 170 miles from San Francisco, but never let the truth get in the way of a story). The media talked about this a lot. Like more than they should have considering Rodgers grew up three hours from San Francisco. Think of what city is three hours from where you live. Is that close to your hometown? Then that's why this story was somewhat silly. Other teams passed on Rodgers too, so it isn't like the 49ers were the only ones who didn't draft Rodgers.

Let's quickly zip through Rodgers's potential for an Eff You game.

Motivation: Through the roof. He's been waiting for eight solid years to play this specific game. And it's do-or-die to boot.

What about Colin Kaepernick's motivation to play a great game since he grew up a Wisconsin fan? Does that story just not fit the narrative?

Danger of Him Being Adrian Balboa'ed: (a.k.a. domesticated by a new wife or girlfriend who is either giving him phenomenal, mind-altering sex or saying things to him like "You have to stop blaming the Niners, it's juvenile, you're better than that" or "Your offensive line can't block, you're playing on the road … YOU CAN'T WIN!!!!!!").

No Bill Simmons column would be complete without a little bit of woman-hating. The only thing that can stop athletes from reaching their potential is some woman nagging him or using her special woman powers to divert him from his real ambitions. It was tongue-in-cheek the first 100 times Bill brought this exact same issue up in his columns over the last decade.

Niners star Justin Smith is either missing the game or playing hurt (huge blow to their pass rush) … Green Bay's receiving crew is the healthiest it's been all year … Rodgers is going against a first-year starter, so really, you'd be taking A FIRST-YEAR STARTER AGAINST AARON F-ING RODGERS … 

Notice through this entire summary of why Aaron Rodgers may have an "Eff You" game there isn't one mention of Green Bay's defense. It's almost like defense is important and the Packers have to try to defend the 49ers from scoring points as well. What ended up happening? The Green Bay defense couldn't stop the 49ers offense.

oh, and he's playing in the Bay Area against his hometown team, which didn't take him in the draft, in case you forgot.

This narrative drives me crazy. This isn't his hometown team. Aaron Rodgers grew up three hours away from San Francisco. Three hours is a long drive to say the 49ers are Rodgers' "hometown" team. Yes, Rodgers is from California, but it isn't like he grew up wandering around Candlestick Park or anything.

Q: Can we get a Levels of Losing ruling for the Redskins-Seahawks game: Watching the amazing athlete who saved your team shred his ligaments bit by bit, knowing he has no chance of pulling it out, yet the defense holds you in there until the end, realizing it was a wonderful season but now, with the bad snap everyone saw coming for three quarters, it may never happen again, confirming your fears that this was just too good to be true. The game doesn't matter. If only RGIII had made it out OK, I'd be alright.
—Milse, Brooklyn

I can give you a ruling that you need to put your big boy pants on and stop whining to Bill Simmons. I can also get a ruling for you that even if RGIII had made it out of that game ok, then you would still not be alright because you whine to a national columnist about your favorite sports team as if he was actually a friend of yours.

SG: After Tom Brady blew out his knee eight minutes into the 2008 season, I created a new Level of Losing called "The Left at the Altar Loss", which I described at the time as "When you're waiting for months and months for the season to start (like planning a wedding), then you have your fantasy drafts (the bachelor party), then you have the rehearsal dinner the night before (making your starting fantasy lineups, making your bets, figuring out which games you'll watch Sunday), then you go to the church for the actual wedding (getting in front of the TV for the 1 p.m. ET games) … and as you're standing on the altar, you find out your bride either changed her mind or got run over by the limo driver. 

Or as every other sports fan would have described what happened to the Patriots in 2008, "Our best player got injured the first week of the new NFL season." Bill likes to over-describe a situation in order to give the illusion of creativity. Mind you, the Patriots went 11-5 that year and somehow didn't make the playoffs. So using his typical technique of whining about it whenever his team doesn't win the championship in a given year, Bill is basically wanting everyone to feel bad for him because the Patriots lost Tom Brady and went 11-5. Yes, the Patriots lost Tom Brady in 2008, but I have a hard time feeling bad for an NFL team that has been to five Super Bowls since 2002...yet this sympathy is what Bill expects because he is always so freaking tortured by his teams.

Q: Was watching the Seahawks-Redskins game with a couple friends. As it was coming to an end, we were trying to figure out who the Hawks were going to play next. We easily named off SF and GB, but we couldn't remember who the other NFC playoff team was. It took us all about two minutes to finally say, "oh yeah, the Falcons!!!" Nobody believes in them. I can't be the only one who finds this hilarious. They could have finished 16-0 and still only Rembert would believe in them.
—Derek, Seattle

SG: (Suddenly nervous about the Seahawks +2.5.)

Right, because you, Derek, didn't remember the Falcons were the #1 seed in the NFC then this means no one else knew this either, because your thoughts have to be the same as every other sports fan's thoughts. I can see why Bill is your hero. Both of you have very self-centric points of view on the world.

Q: So I was preparing for my first sexual experience this weekend

I'm assuming this first sexual experience was with a hooker or with yourself because no self-respecting person would write to Bill Simmons about his first sexual experience and actually have a woman want to sleep with him.

and I encountered something more nerve-wracking than the experience itself … buying the condom. How does one go about it?

You put on your big boy pants (my phrase of the day apparently), go into a store, and then buy a box of condoms. It's very, very nerve-wracking unless you have nerves of jello or are 13 years old. I'm feeling bad for this kid. He's not only writing to Bill Simmons about his first sexual experience, but he also seems to not understand how to buy condoms. Here's a little tip. If you are too nerve-wracked to buy condoms, then you are going to be super-screwed (no pun intended) once you begin experiencing your first sexual experience and the girl throws a curveball in the gameplan.

Do you go to a convenience store far away so no one recognizes you? Do you buy other things with it so it looks like you haven't been dreading this moment all day? Do you look the cashier in the eye like "Yeah … you know what's up." No sports question here, just an important life question.

You go to a store where condoms are sold and then purchase a box. If the cashier is male and looks at you funny or with a smirk, simply say, "I need these for sex because aluminum foil didn't work so well last time. You probably know better than me actually, what kind of condom does your sister prefer?" If the cashier is a female and looks at you in a judging fashion, simply say, "I would ask you to join, but we do have a weight limit" and that should diffuse any tension immediately.

SG: Two tips: Always buy a few other things and ALWAYS make eye contact. And make the eye contact with one of those "That's right, I'm getting laid tonight" looks on your face. 

Not terrible advice. The scariest part is that someone actually wrote into Bill Simmons with this question.

I watched every play of that game with Mays and Jacoby from Grantland; we didn't even have the "Should they pull Griffin for Cousins?" conversation until Seattle went up by seven. (They said no. I said yes, but only because I thought Cousins had proven himself in a similar situation.)

Bill with the name-dropping as usual. Bill is incapable of simply saying he watched a sporting event with other people. He always has to name that other person for some reason, usually because the person he watched the sporting even with is a celebrity or has some level of fame.

Q: This should have been an easy victory for the NHL. The season will happen, hockey is back, Hallelujah Amen. BOOM! Instead they picked the worst possible time/manner to announce the deal. First, they made the announcement on 6 am on a Sunday. I don't know about you, but I'm almost always guaranteed to be passed out at that point. By the time I'm awake/not hungover it's football time. Why would the NHL announce the deal on a day that some major playoff games were happening? Are they shortsighted when it comes to EVERYTHING? I need ANSWERS!
 
—James Cutler, Philly

SG: That e-mail was Reason No. 193 why Gary Bruce Bettman is the NHL's serial killer. Reason No. 194: Instead of "leaking" a tentative schedule for that first weekend of games (January 19 and 20) before the players ratified the new CBA, the league smartly decided not to leak anything — now we're eight days away from the start of the season, and no NHL season-ticket holder can make plans that weekend or effectively answer questions like, "Should we make dinner reservations for that Saturday night or do you have a hockey game?" or "Are we still going camping this weekend or do we have to stick around?" And god forbid you have kids with scheduled playdates, birthday parties, soccer games or whatever — you're at the whim of Gary Bruce Bettman, the most incompetent sports commissioner who ever lived.

Doesn't Gary Bettman know that Bill Simmons, extremely casual hockey fan whenever the Kings or Bruins are winning, needs to know the NHL schedule now so that no playdates or soccer games interfere with the games? Because we all know yanking your kid from a birthday party to go to a fucking hockey game would go over incredibly well. Or was Bill looking to force the birthday kid to change the date so he can attend a hockey game?

"Sorry little Alex, if you want my son, and therefore me, to attend your birthday party you have to reschedule it around the Kings' hockey schedule. Change the date or I won't be there. I will send you a list of acceptable dates for your party by email later tonight."

True story: My father is visiting next weekend to see his grandkids and possibly watch the Broncos-Patriots game if the Patriots can get past Houston this weekend.

That's a true story and not at all made up? Riveting. True story: We don't need an update on what your family is doing or who is visiting. Though I could go for another picture of Bill's dad's mustache because it is awesome.

The Sports Gal and I ended up having this exchange.

So Bill's readers get an update on who is visiting the Simmons household AND a lengthy transcript of a conversation he had with his wife? Is this Christmas in January? I will mention an interesting comment my wife or someone else made from time-to-time on Twitter, but I'm not going to include a lengthy transcript of a conversation because NOBODY CARES.

I hate to ruin the entire conversation for everyone, but it ends this way:

Her: "So we can't plan anything on Saturday until we find out if there's a hockey game."
Me: "Basically."
Her: "Even thought it's basically a week from now?"
Me: "Right. And even though they've been holding my season-ticket money since last April."
Her: "SERIOUSLY, WHY IS HOCKEY SO STUPID?????"

Why can't the Sports Gal write Bill's columns for him anymore? I still think the reason she quit writing in Bill's columns like she used to do is because Bill realized the readers found her to be more interesting than him. Bill has to be the smartest and most clever guy in the room, so the Sports Gal had to go.

Q: Since Nate Silver is predicting a Pats-Seahawks Superbowl (and seeing that he has been 100% right lately) what are you going to do if that happens?
—Dave, So. Florida

Well, it turns out this ended up not happening. I'm not sure I get the question though. What would Bill do? Umm...maybe watch the Super Bowl on television or try to attend the game?

SG: And if it ends up being Pats-Seahawks, I need you to understand something. There's only one thing worse than losing a Super Bowl to anyone named "Manning" … and that's losing a Super Bowl to Pete Carroll. If the Seahawks are standing in the way of our fourth Bowl, I will turn on Russell Wilson faster than Magic Johnson turned on the Mike D'Antoni hiring.

"We're so tortured! It would be so terrible to lose to Pete Carroll, because when the Patriots fired Pete Carroll it led to the Patriots hiring one of the greatest head coaches in NFL history, five Super Bowl appearances and a Patriots dynasty. It's so terrible if we had to play Pete Carroll and lost the Super Bowl even though it led to the greatest period of success in Patriots history! Sympathy me!"

Is there nothing Bill Simmons will refrain from whining about? He works so hard to give New England fans a bad reputation. It would have been interesting if the Patriots had lost a Super Bowl to their ex-head coach, but it isn't the worst thing that could happen next to losing to a Manning. The firing of Pete Carroll led to the greatest period in Patriots history, yet Bill still finds a way to whine about potentially losing a Super Bowl to Carroll. Things could not have worked out better for the Patriots after Carroll got fired, but Bill still plays the whining/sympathy card.

Then Bill brings up a pretty good point about Christian Ponder and how the perception of him has changed slightly because Joe Webb stunk it up in the playoff game against the Packers. Ponder was seen as the weak link for the Vikings, and while there is still this perception, his stock has increased some with Webb's performance against the Packers. When Bill doesn't have his head up in his own ass, he can still make an interesting point.

Q: It's finally here, the moment I've been waiting for all season; the chance to bet a road underdog against the Falcons in the Playoffs. But now I'm second guessing myself. Thinking this is the year Matt Ryan finally breaks through because they are the "Nobody believes in us" 13-3 #1 seed. I hate this.
—AJ, Peabody, MA

SG: Keep your eyes on the prize. Don't get suckered in by the whole "West Coast team playing a 1 p.m. East Coast game" thing, Chris Clemons's knee injury, or even the fact that it's the most important game Matt Ryan has ever played (and he knows it). And don't worry about the "Nobody Believes In Us" thing. The Giants murdered that theory this season. Everyone's onto it now. Can't work if everyone has their guards up. Take the Seahawks, take the points. They are better.

Bill Simmons created the "Nobody Believes in Us" thing himself, so now he is the one proclaiming it to be dead because it didn't work for the Giants? Does he really believe the 2012 New York Giants were the first team to do the whole "Nobody Believed in Us" thing and not have it work out? Nearly every sports team at some point plays the "Nobody Believed in Us" card and sometimes it turns out not working for them. But no, in 2012 because it didn't work for the New York Giants then the theory has been murdered.

Look for Bill to use the "Nobody Believed in Us" mantra at some point in the future in one of his columns (spoiler alert: or this column). He'll think of an excuse for why the theory is no longer murdered.

Q: After the formal introduction of Andy Reid as Kansas City's new head coach, do you realize the Chiefs have hired two more of your "Flabbergasted Four" as head coaches, giving them three in all (Herm Edwards, Romeo Crennel and Andy Reid)! Can I get a "ladies and gentlemen your Kansas City Chiefs?"
—Chris James, Blackstone, NY

SG: And don't rule out the Chiefs firing Andy in 2016 and hiring Brad Childress to complete the Flabbergasted Four Trifecta! (Wait, what? They're already talking to Brad about joining Andy's staff? Are we sure?) In all caps … LADIES AND GENTLEMEN … YOUR KANSAS CITY CHIEFS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've always noticed how a lot of what Bill writes becomes a circular discussion and very self-contained in the topics discussed...at least in the mailbags he runs. A mailbag usually consists of Bill's readers telling him how right he was about something, contributing to an idea that Bill has created or Bill improving upon an idea his readers already have. Bill's writing usually progresses this way:

1. Bill creates a "team" of athletes or celebrities or makes a joke/observation in his column.

2. Bill's readers add names to that team or add on to the joke/observation.

3. Bill then uses this team or joke/observation the reader added, improves on it 10%, because he can't allow someone to be smarter than him and then claims ownership.

4. Bill's readers tell him how smart he is for thinking of this joke/observation or team.

5. Bill's own perception that he is the smartest and most clever guy in the room is reinforced, which is all that seems to matter anyway. The readers see that Bill listens to them and acknowledges their ideas, but because he is so much smarter than them, he had to improve on the idea. It's like one big circle-jerk so that Bill's readers can remind him of how clever and funny he is.

Q: Have you realized that if Peyton's Broncos beat the Patriots this year, Tom Brady & the Patriots will most likely have been denied four additional Super Bowls directly because of the Manning brothers? This got me thinking of a movie idea, involving Bill Belichick as an evil mastermind (not too far off from real-life), who creates a time machine and sends Brady back to the 1970s to stop Archie Manning from conceiving his two sons. With all the different time-travel rules the movie could play with, the possiblities are endless. Wouldn't this be a must-own Blu-ray?
—Adam, Lexington, MA

Uh-oh, this reader has a good idea and seems to be very clever. Bill will not stand for this.

SG: I knew this was a great idea because it could easily be a movie or animated series, but also, it's something I spent about 15 seconds mulling over while thinking, Wait, what if this could actually happen in real life?

Commence with Bill improving the idea by 10% so that he can claim it as his own and also show Adam from Massachusetts that he (Bill) is the smartest and most clever guy in the room at all times.

But you left out a crucial part of the plot: Roger Goodell catching wind of Belichick's scheme, then going back in time himself to stop Brady (like Robert Patrick in Terminator 2) so he can protect a future world where the Mannings rule football. Oh, and he could spend his spare time convincing thousands of 1970s players to sign documents releasing the league from all accountability for their future health issues while he's there.

Bill can not allow this good idea to stand on its own. He has to improve upon this reader's idea for some reason. This is a common occurrence in Bill's mailbags. His readers submit an idea and then Bill improves on the idea because his ego can't stand the idea of presenting a reader idea without showing how much smarter than the reader he is.

You want to make sure they can throw the ball downfield (they can) and that their big-play guys can make two big plays (yes for the Ravens with Ray Rice, Torrey Smith, Anquan Boldin and even Bernard Pierce), and that they're on something of a mission (Ray Lewis's announcement clinched that). You want to make sure they can handle the January elements (no problem there). And if there's a dash of "Nobody Believes In Us!," even better (and there is).

From earlier in this column:

And don't worry about the "Nobody Believes In Us" thing. The Giants murdered that theory this season. Everyone's onto it now. Can't work if everyone has their guards up.

It seems everyone is on to it now, except when Bill needs to use this theory when it becomes convenient to use this theory. When Bill needs to use "Nobody Believes in Us" reasoning for why a team should win a game, then the idea isn't murdered anymore. So was the "Nobody Believes in Us" thing only dead as it pertains to the Giants? If so, why wouldn't this logic pertain to the Ravens as well? After all, it is hard to believe no one really believes in the Ravens since they made the AFC Championship Game last year. This is the issue with creating theories and not sticking by them, it creates confusion and allows the theory-creator to apply the theory whenever it is convenient for him to do so. Basically, the theory turns into this malleable idea that has no impact on the reader.

Then Bill had the same strange feeling about the Ravens beating the Broncos that I had, which disturbs me beyond belief. This led to a riveting exchange with Mike Lombardi:

Me: "Am I crazy or can the Ravens win this game?"
Lombardi: "You are NOT crazy."

I'm just glad Bill relays these conversations to us. I do find it interesting that Mike Lombardi is supposed to be such a good friend of Bill Belichick's, but Belichick hasn't seen fit to hire Lombardi over the past few years. Maybe Lombardi just liked working for the Cleveland Browns and NFL Network.

My fears for picking against the Falcons: Taking three road teams in Round 2 … going against Matt Ryan in what's clearly a "My Career Is On Trial" Game … the "Nobody Believes In Us Even Though We're A No. 1 Seed" thing … 

Again, this despite the fact Bill said "Nobody Believes in Us" was dead earlier in this very column when discussing these same Falcons. The idea is dead until Bill needs it again.

My fears for picking the Falcons: ...the fact that Seattle has "the look" (as Lombardi loves to say) …

Mike Lombardi, genius in his own mind.

Seattle's oversized cheating cornerbacks matching up nicely with Atlanta's oversized receivers …

After the 2004 AFC Championship Game where the Colts receivers were manhandled by the Patriots secondary, it's hard for me to read Bill referring to the Seahawks corners as "cheating." Or is this a reference to the fact the corners both claim they took Adderall and that's why they tested positive for a banned substance? It's probably a little of both.

PATRIOTS (-10) over Texans

Keep this in mind: The Patriots haven't submitted a dominant playoff performance against a quality team in years. (No, you can't count the Denver Tebows last January.)

And why doesn't this game count? It was a dominant playoff performance. I am guessing it doesn't count because Bill doesn't want it to count, which is pretty much bullshit. He can't say "this game doesn't count" simply because if the game counted it would ruin the point he wants to prove.

"Keep this in mind: Peyton Manning has never won a Super Bowl. (No, you can't count the Super Bowl against Rex Grossman and the Bears)."

It's been 11 years since that first Super Bowl victory in New Orleans, back when Bledsoe and Ty and Willie were still around, when the Patriots franchise was still something of a joke, when the Boston sports scene was stuck in a rut, when it seemed absolutely inconceivable that the New England Patriots would ever win anything other than a booby prize. They ended up winning three Bowls. With a couple of breaks, they could have won three more.

And with a couple of breaks not going their way, they could have won one Super Bowl (Bill continues to consistently try to make people hate New England sports fans, doesn't he?). Keep that in mind as well. The breaks in Super Bowls didn't just go against the Patriots, though I know Bill can't fathom the idea one of his favorite teams may have gotten a break or two. In Bill's mind, his teams are always so tortured that the breaks always go against his favorite teams. So it is unfathomable to Bill that the Patriots benefited from a break or two along the way. Bill is enamored with "what if?" scenarios because it allows him to control sports history in the way that he sees fit.

But the mission will remain the same. And it starts this weekend.

Bill was right, the Patriots won. I don't know who I want to win the Super Bowl, but I always lean towards anti-Patriots just so I don't have to hear Bill Simmons gloat and make up drama-filled narratives about how resilient and outstanding the current Patriots team was as compared to every other team in NFL history. I already have to deal with that bullshit when he discusses the Celtics (which now that they are winning games, he should be discussing the Celtics more often very soon). 

20 comments Bill Simmons Just Doesn't Like Kobe Bryant

I used to read Bill Simmons' columns about 10 years ago every time one got posted on ESPN.com. What has happened since then? Well part of the reason is Bill Simmons has become a first-rate starfucker. He is all about dropping the names of celebrities and athletes he has interacted with in any fashion. His writing ability aside, it's pretty unbearable to read him name-dropping how he watched a basketball game with Jalen Rose and Chuck Klosterman or trying to drop some "inside knowledge" he heard about an NBA team or player from one of the many people Bill has leeched on to through his employment with ESPN. For his Week 14 picks Bill decided to write a loooooooooong, rambling column about Kobe Bryant based on a conversation that he had with Bill Russell.

The entire point of the column appears to be that Kobe Bryant isn't Bill Russell and doesn't care if he is Bill Russell. It's hard to read this column believing Bill isn't being somewhat critical of Bryant considering the Boston Sports Guy hates the Lakers and Kobe Bryant specifically. Bill's "6 for 24" comments about the 2010 NBA Finals got old after the first or second time Bill mentioned this statistic. It's interesting how Bill frames the discussion of Kobe Bryant being a leader as compared to how he frames other NBA players as leaders. He always tends to frame Kobe being a leader from a purely selfish point of view, while framing other players (specifically Bill Russell) as a leader, because gosh darn it, he just wants his fellow teammates to do well. I'm not a Kobe defender, but it's like Bill has never heard of different methods of leadership...which we learn from a conversation Bill had with Bill Walton actually ends up being true. Bill assumed the correct way of being a leader was the Bill Russell method.

I spent five hours with Bill Russell last week and thought of Kobe Bryant twice and only twice.

This leads me to the question...how many times in a day does Bill Simmons think about Kobe Bryant? More than twice? Ten times? Every minute of the day? Thinking about Kobe Bryant in a day more than twice is cause for concern.

I accidentally watched 30 seconds of the ESPN halftime show on Friday and heard Bill Simmons plug this article. He's like a one-man marketing machine for his bullshit. 

One time, we were discussing a revelation from Russell's extraordinary biography, Second Wind, that Russell scouted the Celtics after joining them in 1956. 

He scouted them? Did he call them on their phone as well and then go visit their house too?

Why would you scout your own teammates? What does that even mean? Russell wanted to play to their strengths and cover their weaknesses, which you can't do without figuring out exactly what those strengths and weaknesses were. So he studied them. He studied them during practices, shooting drills, scrimmages, even those rare moments when Red Auerbach rested him during games.

I'm a big Bill Russell fan, but I'm guessing he wasn't the only professional athlete to scout and study what his teammates did well or poorly during games and practice. Through this whole article we will read Bill "fancy up" what Russell did as an NBA player in an effort to make Russell seem more unique than he already is. I don't know what passed for common sense in the NBA fifty years ago, but this seems like common sense. An athlete figures out his teammates strengths and weaknesses during practice and games, regardless of whether he knows he is doing it or not.

He built a mental filing cabinet that stored everything they could and couldn't do, then determined how to boost them accordingly.

This is a fancy way of Bill Russell remembered his teammates strengths and weaknesses and then figured out how to help them improve.

It was HIS job to make THEM better. That's what he believed.

Bill writes his columns like a junior high-educated person writes an angry email. He italicizes random words and then capitalizes words constantly in order to provide emphasis. I capitalize certain words on occasion, but Bill does this constantly. His writing reminds me of an angry email I will get at work from a disgruntled person who doesn't know exactly why he/she is angry, but knows capitalizing as many words as possible is the best way to convey this anger.

So when Russell mentioned a current star devouring his book and stealing that specific concept — then thanking Russell for the help — naturally, I expected the player to be LeBron James, Chris Paul, Steve Nash, maybe even Kevin Durant. Nope.

Kobe Bryant.

"Really?" I said incredulously.

"This doesn't match my previously held belief based solely on my biased opinion on how I want Kobe Bryant to act. I must find a way to immediately dismiss this information or show how Kobe Bryant isn't in any way like Bill Russell. Reality is secondary to my preconceived notions."

Which didn't make sense to me. After all, Kobe regards his teammates the same way President Obama regards the Secret Service — these guys are here to serve and protect ME. Why would he need to scout them? What was I missing?

What you are missing is that Kobe Bryant is like this, but he also has a history of including his teammates or deferring if it makes the team better. Kobe's ego got in the way of his split with Shaq, but the bigger point is that Kobe was in the right to want to be "the guy" for the Lakers. The Lakers were right to choose to build around Kobe and trade Shaq when there were issues. Bill has preconceived notions about Kobe, and yes Kobe can be a dick, but he also is astutely aware of what makes the Lakers a better team and will embrace that when necessary.

I hate the Lakers. I've hated the Lakers for as long as I can remember. James Worthy went to my high school and I couldn't stand to see his jersey number on the wall of the gym. I don't like Magic Johnson either...because he played for the Lakers and for no other reason. In all of my hatred, I can also realize the truth. My blind disgust for the Lakers can't override the truth and make me look like a homer-ish dickweed. Kobe is an asshole, but he also wants to win games, and knows he has to make his teammates better to do that. Maybe Kobe doesn't have the same leadership style Bill Russell does, but he pushes his teammates for a reason, to make them better.

Later in the day, we were discussing leadership and Russell revealed that he never criticized a teammate publicly or privately. Not once. Not during his entire 13-year career. What was the point? Everyone already knew Russell was their best player — why undermine their confidence by making them doubt themselves, or even worse, making them wonder if he believed in them? How was that productive?

I don't know, but different players have different leadership abilities and styles. As a counter to this argument, if a little criticism from Kobe Bryant is going to ruin one of his teammate's confidence or make the player doubt himself then how is that player going to react in a crucial playoff game when he starts off 1-8 from the field with two fouls in the first quarter? If criticism from Kobe destroys the player's confidence, what will public failure in a nationally televised game due to that player's confidence?

Russell believed, and still believes, that a basketball team only achieves its potential if everyone embraces their roles — you figure out what you have, split the responsibilities and you're off.

Everyone believes this. Russell could have been the first to think of this idea, but nearly every championship team has players who embrace their roles. Robert Horry wasn't trying to score 30 points in a game and Derek Fisher didn't start launching three point shots out of an isolation play. Again, Bill is trying to "fancy up" Russell's words to make him seem like the only one who believes this. Part of the reason the Miami Heat won the 2012 NBA Title is they found guys like Shane Battier, Mike Miller and James Jones who found their role, while LeBron embraced his role as the alpha dog and Wade accepted the secondary alpha dog role. Great teams find players who can embrace a role.

But that would have failed unless everyone embraced their role, and that's the thing — everyone has to have a role.

Holy shit, we know this already. 

I'm not dismissing Bill Russell or his book. His legacy stands for itself without further comment, but Bill Simmons is quickly becoming the master of stating the obvious and coating the obvious in terms where it doesn't seem so obvious. Whether it is criticizing the NFL commissioner for concussions over a year after this issue arises or making it seem like the idea a championship team needs role players to know their role is a new idea, it's all been done and stated before, so don't make it seem like it hasn't.

So it was the "everything else" that varied from season to season, or even month to month — Russell assessed what his team needed and tailored his game accordingly. That's what made him Bill Russell.

Star players tend to do this. Tim Duncan recognizes that Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili like to drive in the lane and so he has developed a jump shot to prevent the lane from being clogged and become a threat outside the paint. Kevin Garnett knows Rajon Rondo likes the ball immediately after it is rebounded (okay, I can't read Rondo's mind but I know he calls for the ball quickly after it is rebounded),so he gets the ball to Rondo as soon as possible. Russell may have invented it, but he isn't the only one who did it.

Russell's book covers one example with an enlightening section on Sam Jones, one of the league's first great scoring guards but someone who feared the responsibility of being great every night. Sam couldn't handle the pressure; the burden was too big, like having the same term paper hanging over your head 100 times per year.

So Sam Jones couldn't handle the pressure of being great every night...

But he also happened to be a phenomenally gifted offensive player, someone who loved taking and making pressure shots. Sam's laconic demeanor worked against him being a legendary player, but for big moments? It was perfect.

But apparently he could handle the pressure of being great in certain situations. Russell understood this. Good for him. This is much like Kobe understood Robert Horry wasn't going to drop 20 points on a nightly basis, but would hit a big shot if given the opportunity. Kobe doesn't get credit for understanding this. Bill doesn't give Kobe credit for recognizing Derek Fisher can't be a leading scorer, but can be counted on to hit a big three-point shot.

Bill Russell left Sam Jones alone.

Yes, but happens when it is a team's second best player (Gasol), a player that team requires to play well to win an NBA Title isn't playing very well? What happens when the new center on the team can't hit his free throws and doesn't show the same passion for winning that Kobe does? The Celtics team could win without Sam Jones handling great responsibility, but if Gasol doesn't play well then the Lakers can't compete. Please understand the difference.

Russell told the other story in Seattle last week, after I asked him how the aging Celtics won their last two titles without a real point guard. They didn't run the triangle offense like MJ's Bulls or Shaq's Lakers … so how?

They had a team loaded with Hall of Fame players surrounding Bill Russell? I know Bill Simmons goes to great lengths to refute this point in his "Basketball" book, but the bottom line is the Celtics always surrounded Russell with talented players. It doesn't take anything away from Russell, but it must be acknowledged.

Russell heard that chant ringing in his ears all summer. After winning eight straight titles, he wasn't ready to be buried as a basketball player yet. He also wasn't ready to blow up his team. So he asked Siegfried to replace K.C. Jones. 

Siegfried resisted. He wasn't a point guard. He didn't want the added responsibility, nor did he want to chase faster players around. Russell gently insisted. No, thanks, Larry Siegfried said. They had reached something of a stalemate. The modern solution would be dealing Siegfried away,

What? The modern solution would be for the Celtics to trade away the only guy on the roster who could play point guard? How is this a solution? The Celtics would then potentially have zero players who could bring the ball up the court.

Spoiler alert: This really isn't the modern solution, but Bill is creating this straw man in an effort to show just how different the Celtics and Russell were from Kobe Bryant and the Lakers.

but the Celtics never traded back then — they believed continuity was their single biggest advantage other than Russell. During Russell's entire playing career, the Celtics only swung one real trade in 13 years: Mel Counts for Bailey Howell.

Again, it makes it easy not to make trades when you are consistently winning NBA Titles with the players on your roster and those players are named Bob Cousy, Tommy Heinsohn, Bill Sharman, Sam Jones, John Havlicek, K.C. Jones, and Satch Sanders. It also helped there was no salary cap in the NBA at the time.

He didn't threaten him or anything, just laid out the landscape. We have me, Havlicek, Sam and Bailey (Howell). All four of us need to play. This is your best way to get minutes, Larry. He kept appealing to him as a friend more than anything.

And of course Bill knows that Bill Russell appealed as a friend because Bill was there when Bill Russell appealed to Larry Siegfried or he knows this based on Russell's account of how he appealed to Siegfried? Since Russell doesn't want to make it seem like he was a pushy leader, I wonder if Siegfried thinks Russell wasn't pushy and appealing to him as a friend? Isn't it possible Russell's account may not be 100% reliable or Siegfried felt threatened but didn't say anything about it?

As Russell was telling the Siegfried story, I couldn't help but wonder how Kobe would have handled that situation. Would he have cussed him out? Bullied him? Called him out to a reporter? Pushed behind the scenes for the Lakers to dump him? And how would an obviously stubborn guy like Siegfried have handled Kobe's reaction? My guess: Siegfried would have pushed back … and if he pushed back, he probably wouldn't have been a Laker for too long.

What a scenario that Bill has presented to us based purely on conjecture and speculation. Not shockingly, the conclusion Bill reaches matches up with the point Bill wants to prove. What a coincidence! Bill's speculation matches his assumptions!

Let's at least agree that Kobe wouldn't have handled things like Bill Russell did.

Let's also agree this is speculation and Bill Russell played in a time before the 24/7 sports media could blow this disagreement between Siegfried and Russell into a bigger issue.

Of the 14 greatest players of all time, only Wilt and Kobe needed 10,000-word footnotes to cover "the other stuff." That list currently looks like this: Jordan, then Russell, then Kareem, then Magic/Bird, then Wilt, then Kobe/Duncan (or Duncan/Kobe), then West/Oscar, then Hakeem/Shaq/Moses. With LeBron lurking in there somewhere. We just don't know where yet.

Yes, "we" don't know where yet, but Bill will be sure to notify "us" when "we" know where LeBron fits in.

You would have loved playing with nine of those guys. The other five? Maybe, maybe not. 

Oh, would I have enjoyed playing with nine of those guys? I didn't know that about myself. Thanks for telling me what I do or don't like because being the fucktard I am, I have no clue what I do or don't believe to be true.

Of course, Oscar was a picnic compared to Jordan, who evolved into a withering, homicidally competitive bully; if you couldn't handle it, you needed to find another team. And Kobe tried to evolve into a withering, homicidally competitive bully, if only because his idol acted that way once upon a time. Eventually, that's what he became. For better and worse.

How about Larry Bird, who was famously competitive and would belittle and ride Kevin McHale during games and practice? I'm sure from Bill Simmons' point of view Bird was just trying to make McHale better, while Kobe is a homicidal bully. What about Larry Bird calling out his teammate Cedric Maxwell for being out of shape after coming back from an injury and said he didn't bring his best every night? I guess that doesn't count either.

Oscar, Hakeem, Shaq and Moses kept playing until nobody wanted them anymore. Jordan left at the perfect time, missed the attention and (unfortunately) came back. Only Russell nailed his exit. I have a feeling Duncan will do the same. But Kobe? Your guess is as good as mine. 

Don't you love how this conversation with Bill Russell has immediately turned into an assessment of Kobe Bryant's leadership abilities? This happened simply because Russell dared to mention Kobe stole a concept from Russell's book to Bill Simmons.

Also, Kobe claims he will retire at age 40, but plans to play for the Lakers for two more seasons. Based on that information readily available through a Google search, it appears my guess is actually better than Bill's.

Many NBA observers believe Kobe will handle his inevitable decline poorly, maybe even more poorly than Jordan's last two Wizards seasons.

This is what is known as "not really reporting" since it is based on pure speculation. Many NBA observers think a lot of things. They "think" them because they are unable to accurately predict the future to say they "know" these things. With a grain of salt is how I take this information.

That's the reason Phil Jackson retired two years ago: He even admitted as much during our lunch together, saying that he didn't want to be coaching Kobe Bryant when Kobe wasn't Kobe anymore.

Bill Simmons went to lunch with Phil Jackson. He doesn't name-drop or anything, he just wants you to know he went to lunch with Phil Jackson. Just ask Jalen Rose or Chuck Klosterman about it they saw them, in fact if you ask Gus Johnson, who Bill just finished having coffee with before meeting Phil Jackson for lunch, he could confirm this as well. There's no word on what Jimmy Kimmel knows and when he knew it.

His defenders maintain that Kobe hasn't been this efficient offensively in years, that you can't blame him for Dwight's back, Nash's leg, Mike Brown's brain and the cast of nobodies on his bench. 

His defenders would have a point in regard to everything except when discussing Kobe's own offensive efficiency.

His detractors believe it's been like watching Kobe Karaoke: As soon as things threatened to go south, Kobe started pushing for a new coach, blasting teammates and hogging the ball in close games. He's the most polarizing superstar since Wilt for a reason.

Because the most popular columnist at ESPN, the founder of Grantland, and the host of ESPN's pregame NBA show continues to write columns about how polarizing Kobe Bryant is?

We know what's driving him: Kobe wants seven rings (one more than Jordan); he wants to be remembered as the greatest Laker of all time; he wants to at least be mentioned with Jordan; and he understands the sheer power of numbers better than anyone. You can pick apart his top-five candidacy pretty easily. 

To be fair, outside of Michael Jordan you could pick apart a lot of players top-five candidacy pretty well.

He was the second-best player on three of those five title teams (not the best).

He was also playing on the same team as one of the best centers of all-time in his prime and was 21-23 years old when he played on those Lakers teams. Excuse him if he was only the second best player on the team. Not to mention, the fact Bryant was able to defer to Shaq could be used by a less biased observer as proof of what a great teammate Bryant showed himself to be at certain points in his career.

He never held the "Best Player Alive" belt as emphatically as Jordan did,

Yes he did. I only say "yes he did" because this is one of Bill Simmons' typically unprovable statements that he tries to pass off as a fact. Bill is great at contriving titles for a player/team (Bill is all about how a team "defends" a title or how a player "defends" an individual award) and then criticizing that player/team for not meeting Bill's own standard for defending these titles.

And unlike Bird, Magic and Michael, his team seriously considered trading him one time (in 2007).

This is completely irrelevant. Part of the reason Kobe almost got traded was because he had sort-of demanded a trade.

Then Bill starts listing statistics which show Kobe Bryant isn't as good as Magic Johnson or Michael Jordan. Of course this isn't a direct comparison since Magic was a different kind of player from Kobe Bryant. Plus, Magic was a fantastic passer, but it benefited him there were Hall of Famers like James Worthy and Kareem catching those passes. It doesn't take anything away from Magic of course.

Like Kobe today, Kareem and Malone were maniacal about taking care of themselves (Kareem with yoga, Malone with weights), but Kobe's era has offered decided advantages in conditioning, dieting, workout equipment, stretching routines, surgical techniques and even goofier advantages like napping (and the science behind it), sneakers (much better today) and the Internet (and the ability to study opponents on sites like Synergy). If ever an NBA player could play for a quarter of a century, and thrive for at least two solid decades, it's Kobe Bean Bryant.

I like the sort-of backhanded compliment here. Bill states Kobe has certain advantages that make him better able to take care of himself and study his opponent without mentioning Kobe's opponents have these same advantages. NBA players are much better athletes now than they were in Kareem and Karl Malone's prime, plus every single advantage Kobe has access to Kobe's opponents also have access to as well. This is a factoid that Bill leaves out (accidentally or on-purpose) to make it seem like Kobe has an advantage now that other current NBA players don't have which sufficiently explains why he is thrives while still being durable. 

And that's what makes "the other stuff" so frustrating. Nothing that happened this season has been surprising because it's happened, in various forms, during so many other Laker seasons.

What an absolute lie. Bill isn't surprised by what has happened this year? Then how come he wrote the NBA should basically hand a 17th title to the Lakers after the Howard trade occurred? 

It seems Bill was quite worried when he wrote an entire column saying the NBA's balance of power had completely shifted to the Lakers. How can Bill and his Simmonsites explain Bill's supposed non-surprise at how the Lakers season turned out when Bill repeatedly stated this past summer that the Lakers were going to probably get a 17th NBA Title? It must be very disappointing for Simmonsites to learn their idol is full of shit. Of course if they had been paying attention rather than worshiping at his altar they would already know this.

He's only been successfully coached by one person … the man who happens to be the greatest NBA coach ever.

Much like Gregg Easterbrook, Bill leaves out important details. Tim Duncan has been successfully coached by one person and Michael Jordan was only successfully coached by one person. Does this mean they aren't great NBA players? Of course not.

His second-best teammate (Gasol) looks totally broken, just a head case, a totally different player from the one who single-handedly almost vanquished our Olympic team five months ago.

Bill is conveniently leaving out exactly why Gasol is broken and how Gasol's performance is making seem more broken than he may be. Gasol is broken partially because he isn't playing well. Let's not forget Gasol needs to play well for the Lakers to win an NBA Title. Naturally, Bill doesn't acknowledge Gasol isn't playing well and this is partially what is causing him to be a head case. He doesn't acknowledge this because he wants us to believe Gasol's poor performance is all Kobe Bryant's fault. That's what Bill will have you believe.

His third-best teammate (Andrew Bynum) got shipped to Philly and traded shots with Kobe on his way out.

What's Bynum doing now, Bill? Bill neglects to mention Bynum's performance in Philadelphia or bring up the idea perhaps Kobe constantly riding Bynum to be a better player actually made him a better player. To acknowledge this would be too unbiased and less deceptive. Bill can only give Kobe back-handed compliments and blame him for not making his teammates better, while ignoring times when Kobe did make his teammates better.

It's just a different way to lead a basketball team: through fear, through conflict, through bullying, through the media. 

Well, he did partially learn how to do this from Michael Jordan. If this article is about Kobe Bryant being a bad leader it could just as easily be about Michael Jordan being a bad leader. Of course if Bill wrote a column about Michael Jordan being a bad leader he would get laughed at.

From what I heard,

Sources everyone! Bill has sources! I wonder if Jacoby told Little Mike (I don't know the names of Bill's friends and family, so I apologize to Simmonsites for getting the names wrong) who relayed a text message about this to Bill who confirmed it with Magic and Jalen Rose?

Kobe already played the "You don't know anything about winning championships!" card with Howard — during a scrimmage last week, when the second team beat the first team partly because Howard checked out (he wasn't getting the ball enough), followed by Kobe blistering him.

Has Bill thought that perhaps Howard deserved this? The second team of the current Lakers team should never beat the first team. If Howard is checking out perhaps he deserves to be reminded he doesn't have any championships. Of course Bill doesn't mention this. We all know if Kevin McHale checked out during practice that Larry Bird would pat him on the ass and tell him not to worry about it.

That same week, Kobe needled Gasol publicly for not sucking it up with knee tendinitis, saying he needed to "put your big boy pants." The whole thing is strange. Really, really weird to watch. Especially for me, just one week after hearing the greatest winner in basketball history say that he never criticized a teammate — not once.

Bill Russell says this. It doesn't mean it is true. For some reason Bill is taking Russell's first hand accounts from 40-50 years ago very, very seriously, even when Russell admitted to Bill he used to be able to remember details of games from that time he can no longer remember. So maybe Russell did criticize a teammate and just forgot he did it.

When we were preparing for our NBA Countdown show on Wednesday afternoon, I told Magic that Russell/teammates story if only because I knew he'd appreciate it.

This is your reminder that Bill works with Magic Johnson. Starfucker, starfucker, starfucker, starfucker, star.

This was like hearing a story about working the crowd from Bruce Springsteen and then passing it along to Mick Jagger.

Another not-so-gentle reminder from Bill that he knows famous athletes if his ceaseless name-dropping wasn't indication enough.

We started discussing the various ways to lead a basketball team. Magic settled on four, believing you could lead by example, by intimidation, by being a communicator (talking all the time, like Magic did) or by some combination of all three, or even two of the three. He didn't believe there was a right way or a wrong way. 

I'm glad it takes Magic Johnson, the same guy who barely can get a sentence out in complete English when on television, to explain to Bill there is more than one way to be a leader. I always thought this was somewhat common sense.

We've never asked Kobe for his feelings on leadership because we know the answer — he posted his thoughts on Facebook during the bizarre Smush Parker embroglio.

Bill's thoughts are in bold and Kobe's post is in bold parenthesis. 

There comes a point when one must make a decision. Are YOU willing to do what it takes to push the right buttons to elevate those around you? If the answer is YES, are you willing to push the right buttons even if it means being perceived as the villain? 

This is what I am talking about with the excessive capitalized words. Don't the capitalized words make Kobe seem a bit unhinged? That's how Bill Simmons writes and he is probably proud of it.

Here's where the true responsibility of being a leader lies. Sometimes you must prioritize the success of the team ahead of how your own image is perceived. 

(I'd be more prone to believe this if Kobe didn't spend so much time obsessing over how his image was perceived — he's the same guy who nicknamed himself "Mamba" and changed his number.

Every NBA player cares how his image is perceived. Michael Jordan is famous for stating "Republicans vote too" when asked why he doesn't get involved politically. This is a somewhat irrelevant point and stating Kobe cares about his image is only disguising the fact every NBA player cares about his image.

It's pushing them to find their inner beast, even if they end up resenting you for it at the time.

(I think that's the most fascinating thing Kobe Bryant has ever said. Seriously. He just explained everything. I don't even think he was exaggerating or writing those words for effect. It might be as simple as "Every time I lay into Gasol or Howard, it's because I am pushing them to find their inner beast, and I don't give a shit if they resent me for it." Does he feel like Gasol responded so beautifully in Game 7 of the 2010 Finals — 19 points, 18 rebounds, nine offensive boards — partly because Kobe pushed him to embrace whatever an "inner beast" is called in Spanish? Why do I feel like he does?)

Because it is very possible Gasol responded to Kobe laying into him. This is a coaching method that some people use to get the very best out of a player. I realize Kobe isn't a coach, but coaches push their players and realize they may end up being resented for doing so. Coaches push their players and one teammate will push another teammate in an effort to get the absolute best out of that person.

I'd rather be perceived as a winner than a good teammate.

(WHOA! GOOD GOD ALMIGHTY! Are you reading this????)

I am sure Michael Jordan believes the same thing. Again, this isn't unheard of.

Then Bill name-drops Bill Walton and reminds us he interviewed Bill Walton for his "Basketball" book.

Walton believed that I didn't like watching Kobe that much because he didn't play basketball the way I liked to see basketball played. That was my choice, just like it was Kobe's choice to play that way.

Bill Simmons, the Boston Sports Guy, just doesn't like Kobe Bryant and that is fine. Don't pretend you are judging him neutrally when you aren't though. Part of being the "Boston Sports Guy," means he hates the Lakers.

So, if the coach isn't working? He needs to go. If the new center isn't trying hard enough? He needs to try harder, or else. If the old center can't snap out of this crazy funk? Then he needs to put on his big-boy pants and suck it up. Kobe Bryant would rather be perceived as a winner than a good teammate. Kobe Bryant figured out what leadership style suited him best.

Exactly and if it isn't Bill Russell's leadership style then that doesn't mean it won't work. Of course Bill thinks the entire world revolves around Boston sports so he naturally thinks only leadership styles like Bill Belichick's, Bill Russell's and ubuntu are effective. This is what happens when you have tunnel vision.

This column has been updated.

Translation? There were incorrect facts but Bill won't let the editors mention which one in order to give the illusion he isn't ever wrong. Much like Kobe, he's gotta an ego to serve.