Tuesday, May 6, 2014

7 comments MMQB Review: More Draft Rumors That Are Probably Lies Edition

Last week in the life of Peter King (formerly known as Monday Morning Quarterback), Peter decided that maybe the top 10 picks really aren't as set in stone as he thought, defended Johnny Manziel from the big meanies who criticize him, and Mike Mayock made some interesting comments about Teddy Bridgewater that quickly became a hot sports take that was very un-Mayock-like. Peter was also going to transcribe some "Veep" jokes for his audience, but the edginess of that show would have hurt the sensitive eyes and emotions of his readers. This week Peter talks a little more about Johnny Manziel (the man knows what gets pageviews), a week after saying everyone is lying tells us the latest real draft rumors that aren't at all lies, tells us about going to Jazzfest, and shockingly reveals to us that Billy Joel is old. Factoids like this are why I read MMQB. Next thing we know, Peter will tell us that U2 is getting old too...but Peter thinks their music still rocks of course.

My meandering T-minus-three-days draftapalooza column (attaway to sell the column, King!) includes an eye-opener from Mike Mayock, predictions from the cognoscenti, separating fiction from fiction [cq] on Johnny Manziel, 

I think I'm going to quit listening to Mike Mayock for a little while after his nonsensical Teddy Bridgewater comments. It sounds like Mayock needs to take a timeout and think about how he could watch hours of Bridgewater's tape and then completely change his mind based on a scripted workout. Also, JOHNNY MANZIEL! READ THIS COLUMN BECAUSE IT HAS "JOHNNY MANZIEL" WRITTEN IN IT!

Keep moving that needle, Peter.

and the hottest name in the draft.

Last week: "Everybody lies this time of year."

This week: "Let me tell you about the hottest name in the draft I learned about just this week!"

Until then, here’s what I know now:

Ten things, from 1 to 32.

From the top of the first round to the bottom, here’s what I’m hearing:

No. 1, Houston. The buzz about a trade-down or Khalil Mack to Houston instead of Jadeveon Clowney won’t die.

It mostly won't die because guys like Peter King and Ian Rappaport keeping repeating this rumor on Twitter and in print. It may be true, but this could also be the sort of rumor that gets legs because reporters keep reporting on it.

Nos. 2 and 13, St. Louis.

It wouldn't a MMQB discussing the NFL Draft if Peter didn't update us on the Rams and whether they are thinking of trading the pick or drafting a certain player with the #2 and #13 picks. The people need to know what the Rams will do! We know it will be brilliant, but just HOW brilliant must be shared prior to the draft!

One other piece of knowledge I got confirmed Sunday: 

(Peter King calls Marvin Demoff) "Hey, has Snead met with Kingsbury about Manziel yet?"

(Marvin Demoff) "I'm pretty sure he has. They met recently."

(Peter King) "Thanks, I'm a super-important reporter, and don't worry, I won't reveal my source." 

Rams GM Les Snead recently went to Texas Tech and met at length with coach Kliff Kingsbury—Manziel’s offensive coordinator and quarterbacks coach at A&M in 2012—and came away thinking Manziel could adjust to life well as an NFL passer.

BREAKING NEWS: A college coach thinks one of the quarterbacks who his legacy will be partially be based upon will make a great NFL quarterback. I hope this doesn't shock you too much.

Does that mean the Rams will take Manziel if he’s there at 13? I am still dubious. But I can tell you the Rams like him a lot.

And this is a rumor I can believe...unless the Rams fed Peter this information in an effort to get another team to trade up to above the Rams spot at #13 in order for a player the Rams really want to fall to them at #13. So maybe I shouldn't believe it. It's not like Peter wouldn't play the fool for the Rams or just put out false information on behalf of the Rams.

No. 3, Jacksonville. A peer of GM David Caldwell said Sunday he knows a big Jag priority will be to play it safe with this pick. Sammy Watkins or Jake Matthews … quite safe.

I don't know if Sammy Watkins is playing it as safe as Peter wants to think. The history of sub-6'3" receivers drafted so high in the draft is quite mixed.

No. 8, Minnesota. The Vikings are more inclined than ever to get their quarterback out of a bottlenecked group of passers at No. 40 in the second round.

No. 11, Tennessee. Hadn’t heard quarterback and the Titans in round one until Sunday. Now I hear: corner one, quarterback two.

And since draft rumors this time of year are always completely true, I guess this should be considered a fact now. Titans fans, try to guess which quarterback your team is selecting in the second round and then pray it isn't Tom Savage.

No. 20, Arizona. We’ve been hearing a lot about quarterback here, and with the unpredictability of the QB market this year, it’s entirely possible the Cards could take a Derek Carr.

Every team is getting a quarterback this year according to Peter King. YOU get a quarterback! YOU get a quarterback! A quarterback for you! Everyone gets a quarterback!

No. 24, Cincinnati. Bengals like Teddy Bridgewater. They couldn’t. Could they?

We know you don't like Andy Dalton, Peter. We get it. I would absolutely not spend my first round pick on a quarterback (though I do love Teddy Bridgewater) if I were the Bengals. Also, there are only so many quarterbacks who should go in the first round, so there are going to be quite a few draft busts at the quarterback position if five QB's are off the board at the #24 pick.

Well, if you’re Cincinnati, and you’re seriously thinking about making Andy Dalton the center of the franchise and paying him $17 million a year, you might be asking the question about whether Dalton’s worth it.

I can understand this, but am still not sure this is a good move. I recognize Peter King's mission is to alert the world that Andy Dalton sucks in the playoffs (though it's funny, the fact Dalton leads his team to the playoffs, where he sucks, is a negative for Peter but he has no criticism for younger quarterbacks like Bradford/Stafford who can't get their team in the playoffs on a regular basis...it's like being in the playoffs and sucking is worse than not going to the playoffs at all), but I really don't think the Bengals should spend a first round pick on a quarterback.

No. 26, Cleveland. Time to get a quarterback, right? Not so fast. GM Ray Farmer has asked at least one team low in the round about trading back into the first round from Cleveland’s second-round slot. That leads me to think Cleveland wants to get ahead of Houston, another obvious quarterback hotspot, and get a passer with a third first-round pick.

And Cleveland, you may not get a quarterback with this pick, but you get a quarterback in the second round! A quarterback for you!

No. 32, Seattle. Think about the advantages of picking, saying, 35th instead of 32nd if you’re the Seahawks.

Thought about it. It totally depends on if there is a player at #32 that I really want.

Last year, the difference between the 32nd pick (safety Matt Elam) and 35th pick (tight end Zach Ertz) was $350,000 per year. Not a huge sum, but when you add a $1.4 million total difference between 32 and 35 to the fact that the Seahawks might be able to get a low-fourth-round pick for moving down three slots—and you remember how good Seattle’s been in the later rounds of drafts—you start to think John Schneider has to be thinking about this too.

I admittedly ain't so good with these picks and their value, but I do understand a fourth round pick this year is worth a third round pick next year, so I'm not sure the Browns would trade a 2015 4th round pick. The Browns fourth round pick (equivalent of a 3rd round pick next year) this year still seems a bit much to move back three picks, but what do I know?

I think the advantages of saving $1.4 million and adding a mid-round prospect outweigh the edge of the fifth-year option.

Which is easy to say right now until that player drafted at #35 is a stud and the Seahawks have to re-sign him in 2-3 more years for fear he will hit free agency rather than have the luxury of pushing back when they have to spend money on this player by exercising his fifth year option.

I asked Mike Mayock, Todd McShay, Mel Kiper and Gil Brandt, “When round one is over Thursday night, tell me a story line or two that will surprise people.”

Mike Mayock thinks Teddy Bridgewater falls entirely out of the draft. No team will draft Bridgewater after that terrible Pro Day he had. Hey, that's just Mayock's prediction based on extensive viewings of Bridgewater's film, followed by all that film being ignored because Bridgewater didn't play well on his Pro Day.

Kiper: “If I predict something that would shock me now, then it probably won’t be too shocking when it happens.

Translation: "Can you just give me my paycheck now? I have no idea what will happen. Just pay me and I will come up with some controversial talking points and then call it a day."

The real shock would be no quarterbacks going before 16, but I really don’t think that’ll happen.’’

It seems Peter King thinks five quarterbacks could go in the first 24 picks. So there's that.

McShay: “I’ve got [Ohio State linebacker] Ryan Shazier going ahead of [more noted Alabama linebacker] C.J. Mosley. I just updated my mock draft today. I’ve got Shazier going to Arizona at 20, Mosley to Green Bay at 21. Shazier is lean, but he can fly.’’

Wow, I'm surprised the fact Shazier can fly didn't cause him to shoot up boards earlier in the draft process. Being able to fly over the offensive linemen to get to the quarterback does seem like a big advantage. Perhaps it's BECAUSE Shazier is lean that helps him to fly? You know, like a bird has wings made of light bones and this helps them fly also.

Brandt: “I don’t think Teddy Bridgewater falls to the second round. I think Johnny Manziel will go in the top five, but not number one. And I think Khalil Mack gets picked ahead of Jadeveon Clowney.”

Mike Mayock says Jadeveon Clowney will go #1 overall, Mack will be fall to the Patriots, who will then trade Mack's rights to the Jaguars along with Tom Brady in exchange for 23 1st round picks and the rights to whichever team lands Teddy Bridgewater as an undrafted free agent...not the rights to Bridgewater, but the rights to the NFL TEAM that drafts Bridgewater. It's a real blockbuster trade. Either way, tune into NFL Network's draft coverage to hear Mayock say crazy things that seems completely out of character for him.

Mayock surprised me the other day by saying he thought Martin will come off the board “between nine and 13 … He’s too good. He’s too safe. He’s about as safe a player as there is in this draft.” 

"Martin is the best player in the draft because he had a great Pro Day. On tape, he allowed 87 sacks this year, but boy, that Pro Day was fantastic!"

Mayock told me Sunday he saw a Notre Dame practice last summer in which Martin had to be shifted from his usual spot, left tackle, to guard because of an injury, and when he watched the tape of the practice, “It looked like he’d been playing guard for years.’’ I know one team in the top 10 seriously considering him.

And by "playing guard" Mayock means playing "point guard." He thinks Martin, if he declared for the NBA Draft, would be the best guard prospect in the draft. He makes Marcus Smart look like a hobo. Tune in to NFL Network on draft night to hear how many crazy-ass things Mike Mayock will say. Here come the ratings!

I’ll make a trade with you, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell: You put the draft back in April, and I’ll support a four-day draft.

Peter, your support for a four-day draft literally means nothing to Roger Goodell. He doesn't want/need your support to get this done.

It’s misleading to say Day 3 is four rounds. It’s actually five, if you include the nearly full round of compensatories. Those 156 picks come in a cascade, with little time for interpretation. Moving it to a fourth day, logically, would make Day 3 cover rounds four and five, with the final day wrapping up rounds six and seven—but with something added at the end.

Yes, because we need one more day for the ESPN draft analysts to spend 50% of the time pretending they know something in-depth about the guy just drafted in the sixth round and spending 50% of the time regurgitating their hot sports takes from the past three days about the guys drafted in the first and second rounds.

If 7.5 million people watch some portion of the NFL scouting combine, then some appreciable fraction of that will watch to see who has a shot to be the next Arian Foster or Kurt Warner.

There's this thing called "over saturation" that I'm not sure the NFL has ever heard of before. They may learn something about it in the coming years. 

ESPN would drop off at the end of the seventh round, most likely, and the NFL could get ratings juice by putting two hours of Daniel Jeremiah and (if he still has a voice left) Mike Mayock on NFL Network,

Mike Mayock thinks there will be more All-Pro players selected in the 7th round of this year's draft than there will be All-Pro players selected in the 1st round of this year's draft. Come to NFL Network for more controversial and crazy statements from Mayock! Who knows what he will say?

In a pleasant way, the long-time long-form Sports Illustrated writer Gary Smith has always gone against the grain. No interest in social media,

One person's "against the grain" is another person's "stays behind the times." Gary Smith is great, but this needs to be mentioned.

Then Peter spends time saying what a great writer Gary Smith is, which may be a true statement, as well as asking Smith what his favorite story he (Smith, not Peter King, though it wouldn't shock me if Peter King asked Gary Smith what Smith's favorite story that Peter has written may be) has written would be. It's interesting, but it reminds me of a description Peter used for Smith in this part of MMQB...

But stories to be loved by the biggest fans and people who don’t care about sports at all. That’s his gift—to make everyone read stories about sports people voraciously.

MMQB is quickly becoming for people who don't necessarily care about reading about the NFL, but prefer to hear anecdotes and "life on the road" tales from Peter King. It's not gotten to the point MMQB is about anything but the NFL, but every new section Peter adds seems to be a section that turns the column in a direction that is less and less NFL-related.

“I’m sad to see some of these guys retiring. I’m not far behind.”
 
—Denver quarterback Peyton Manning, on the field at Yankee Stadium on Sunday. He was in New York to see friend Derek Jeter play for the last time, and he’ll stay today to tape the Letterman show. Jeter and Letterman have both announced plans to retire.

This is one of the "Quotes of the Week," a quote from Peyton Manning revealing that he is close to retiring, which is something most people already knew. It will be sad to see the best baseball player of Peter's lifetime AND the only quarterback to secretly be a massive corporate shill while covering it up with humor retiring within a few years of each other.

“We look at the draft as, in some respects, a luck-driven process. The more picks you have, the more chances you have to get a good player. When we look at teams that draft well, it’s not necessarily that they’re drafting better than anybody else. It seems to be that they have more picks. There’s definitely a correlation between the amount of picks and drafting good players.”
 
—Baltimore assistant GM Eric DeCosta, to Jenny Vrentas of The MMQB, in Vrentas’ enlightening story last week about the Ravens’ love of compensatory picks, and how they intentionally try to obtain more compensatory picks than other teams through a sort of planned obsolescence of their own veterans. 

This is the same planned obsolescence of their veterans that led to the Ravens trading Anquan Boldin and led to the Ravens announcing difficult moves they would have to make after their Super Bowl winning season, which led to Peter King astoundingly taking this to mean the Ravens may not re-sign Joe Flacco.

I strongly recommend you give Vrentas’ story a read if you have not already.

Peter strongly recommends we read the story that is on the football website that he has started in connection with SI.com. So this is a completely unbiased recommendation that we need to read this story and is in no way recommended for any reason other than the fact it's a great story. I wrote a really great post the other day I would highly recommend you read. It's brilliant.

“He’s got the balls of a burglar.”
 
—Rich Gannon, former NFL quarterback and 2002 NFL MVP, to me, on Johnny Manziel, in my virtual roundtable with five quarterback experts dissecting Manziel this week.

Johnny Manziel! He gets pageviews, that's for sure, so be sure to mention him as often as possible. ESPN is turning Manziel into the new Tebow, while Peter King has mentioned Johnny Manziel in every MMQB for the past month, while really not highlighting or discussing any of the other quarterbacks in the draft in-depth. Peter takes the time to highlight a ridiculous comment made about Teddy Bridgewater or report on Tom Savage's rise up draft boards, but otherwise he tends to stick to the draft prospect that he knows gets viewers' eyes to MMQB.

Asked a veteran personnel man this week how many players his team had with “make-it’’ grades on his draft board, and he said 170, which is up about 25 players from a usual draft. Different teams I’m sure will have different ways of looking at this board; I’m just saying this draft probably has more players who would make an average NFL roster than most recent drafts.

Let's look at this paragraph and see the issues with exactly how Peter has reached this conclusion that this draft has more players who probably would make an average NFL roster than most recent drafts. 

1. We have no idea which team this veteran personnel man works for. Is it the average NFL team? Is it a team that is rebuilding and therefore more players in the draft could stand a chance of making the roster? Is it the Seahawks, so players would have a smaller chance of making the roster?

2. How do we know this is up 25 players from a usual draft? Has Peter asked this same veteran personnel man every year and its averaged that usually 145 players have a "make-it" grade on his team's draft board?

3. Acknowledging different teams have different ways of looking at the board is great, but doesn't this mean the 170 players with a "make-it" grade could be on the high side? Or on the low side?

4. This is a sample size of one team, so it's nearly impossible to say 170 players with a "make-it" grade is representative of how other NFL teams feel. There's almost no concrete conclusion that can be drawn from the information Peter has conveyed. It could be representative of all other NFL teams or it could mean absolutely nothing.

5. How can Peter come to the conclusion this draft has more players who would make an average NFL roster than most recent drafts? We don't know if the team whose draft board has 170 players with a "make-it" grade is representative of the other NFL teams nor do we know the strength of the overall roster for the team that this veteran personnel man works for. I have to make this point twice. Peter reaches a conclusion based on the draft board for one NFL team.

This is another example of Peter King saying something like, "This draft is harder to figure out in terms of which quarterbacks are the best" when it may not entirely be true. He's become more and more prone to hyperbole and using this hyperbole to make a point. Peter is basically saying, "Well this one team has 170 players with a 'make-it' grade on their draft board so that is probably true for every team" and doesn't have the proof necessary to back this statement up.

The 170th pick is the 30th pick in the fifth round this year. San Francisco owns it. Here are the teams that, theoretically, could have the biggest injection of new life on their rosters this fall, the teams with the most picks among the top 170:

8: Cleveland*, Jacksonville, San Francisco.
7: New York Jets.
6: Atlanta, New Orleans, St. Louis, Baltimore, Houston, Detroit, Minnesota, Green Bay.


Again, this is assuming the 170 players figure is a correct figure and that all of the 170 players on this team's draft board are selected in the first 170 picks. It's entirely possible another team has a different draft board with different players that have "make-it" picks that aren't considered in the Top 170 players of the draft. It's very convoluted, but the bottom line is I don't think Peter is telling his readers very much other than which teams have the most picks out of the first 170 picks in the draft.

Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week

After years of being told, “You’ve got to go to Jazzfest,” I finally went to the New Orleans spring staple, the New Orleans Jazz & Heritage Festival, on Saturday … to see Bruce Springsteen at the old lady of a racetrack there, The Fairgrounds.

Ah yes, Peter went to this festival to see Bruce Springsteen play. I know nothing about this festival, but is it like Coachella for Peter's generation?

"I have been told for years I should go to Coachella, so I finally went this year to hear U2 perform. I left after they performed, but boy I had a great experience!"

Springsteen was his usual indefatigable self. How does a 64-year-old man keep up that pace—not just for 2 hours and 35 minutes, but the pace of touring and keeping it so fun night after night? Coolest part of the show: He brought up John Fogerty—and Fogerty’s two sons to play maracas—and they combined on “Green River” and “Proud Mary.”

At the same time Springsteen played, you could have (and thousands did) seen elsewhere on the property Trey Songz, Foster the People, Better Than Ezra, Al Jarreau, Johnny Winter, The Head and the Heart (a Seattle-based Steve Gleason favorite) … or Dwayne Dopsie & the Zydeco Hellraisers.

Oh, so it isn't Coachella for Peter's generation. It has a couple of newer artists and older artists. Sounds like fun. It also sounds not NFL-related and goes back to my point that MMQB is becoming a column for people who like to read about Peter's stories about his life and travel, with a little NFL talk mixed in.

1. Saw Rob Ryan, the Saints’ rock star of a defensive coordinator, and NBC’s Brian Williams, a huge Springsteen fan, at the show. You see what Williams, the Yankee fan, is doing in this photo? He’s covering up the Red Sox logo on my shirt.

Oh, I thought he was feeling your breast Peter. Thanks for clearing that up. I didn't know. Brian Williams didn't seem like he had a male nipple fetish, but you never know.

3. I visited Steve Gleason, who spent some time in the hospital this week with pneumonia. He’s feeling better, but his ALS is advancing inexorably. It’s such a cruel disease; muscles controlling his ability to swallow now don’t work. Cutest thing I saw all weekend

Jesus, Peter. How insensitive. ALS isn't cute at all.

: Gleason’s son Rivers sitting on his lap in his wheelchair, watching a Jimmy Kimmel skit on YouTube.

Oh, well I guess that is cute. Talk about a tough transition from one sentence to the other. One sentence is about the cruelty of ALS and the next sentence Peter is marveling at the cuteness (Not precociousness, not at all) of Gleason's son.



I don’t know who that is, but I like the handle.

It's God, Peter. That is God Tweeting.

Ten Things I Think I Think

1. I think I’m in favor of the draft rotating sites. As Cowboys VP Stephen Jones said the other day, he’s in favor of the idea of putting it at the team’s stadium in Arlington.

How shocking that Stephen Jones suggested the draft be at his team's stadium in Arlington. I thought he was going to suggest the draft be held in the Superdome or anywhere, but alas, he wants the draft to be in his team's home stadium. I'm speechless at this amazing turn of events.

I'm not sure I have a preference on whether the draft gets moved or not, but my opinion could be greatly affected by whether I have to hear idiot Jets fans boo or cheer a pick as if they really know the player that was just selected. I also wish ESPN would not focus on these idiot Jets fans when it comes time for their team to pick and act like their opinion means anything other than a bunch of morons booing because they are too uneducated to know the player their team just chose.

4. I think the GM under the most pressure this week is Rick Spielman in Minnesota. He cannot pick the wrong quarterback if he wants any job security.

In fairness to Spielman, he doesn't HAVE to pick a quarterback, but the expectation the Vikings pick a quarterback seems to be there so I guess Spielman will end up choosing one whether he really feels that quarterback is the right guy or not.

5. I think one of the big questions anyone should have about Pitt quarterback Tom Savage was raised the other day by Gil Brandt. “It’ll be interesting to see how much of a factor it’ll be that Savage basically went 1,000 days without playing a game,’’ he said. “Did you know that?” Can’t say that I did. But I looked it up. And yes, it was 1,022 days between the last game Savage played at Rutgers in 2010 and the first game he played at Pitt in 2013.

Again, Savage's agent needs a raise. The fact Savage got invited to the draft and is even being considered in the first two rounds is a tribute to his agent doing work and getting Savage's name to climb the boards of some teams. Of course, this could all have been a smokescreen and Savage really wasn't climbing the board of any teams.

7. I think Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk is on to something. He reported Sunday that of the 32 first-round picks in 2011—all, of course, eligible now to talk new contracts with their teams—none, apparently, is close to a long-term extension. Not J.J. Watt, not Cam Newton.

I'm not sure Mike Florio is on to anything. I get that Peter loves his NBC corporate synergy though. Teams could pick up 5th year options just this past offseason and there is no rush to get a contract done since these players are essentially under another two year deal. Why would a team spend time trying to work out a contract extension in the offseason as opposed to preparing for the draft when they have two years to work out the contract extension? There's no rush.

There’s probably a logical reason—that teams don’t have to do anything now before the draft, and talks will heat up after the middle of May. But if they don’t, you can be sure players will press the collusion button.

They can press the collusion button all they want, but it means nothing. Again, these players are under two year deals now, and if a deal can't be worked out, then these players can be franchise-tagged. I'm pretty sure neither the Texans or the Panthers would play games with Watt and Newton for the sake of collusion. I could be wrong, but I don't think the fact no long-term deals have been worked out yet means much of anything at this point.

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

a. Has V. Stiviano’s 15 minutes expired yet?

b. Could it? Quickly?

c. My favorite line from this sap’s interview with Barbara Walters: Asked about her relationship with Donald Sterling, Stiviano said, “I’m his right-hand arm man. I’m his best friend, his confidant, his silly rabbit.”

Why are these all not under the same heading for "a."? It's the same topic being discussed.

d. I wish I had a right-hand arm man. Any volunteers?

I always just assumed it was Brett Favre.

e. The NBA is not my forte, but night after night it is great drama. The other night, when the Damian Lillard three-pointer at the buzzer went in to win the Portland-Houston series, I screamed at the TV. Imagine what Portlandians did. Fantastic theater.

Has Peter ever started off a comment about the NBA with anything but a remark about how he doesn't like the NBA, doesn't watch the NBA and doesn't know anything about the NBA? He seems to watch a lot of NBA basketball and have strong opinions on the sport for a guy who doesn't like it.

h. Coffeenerdness: I could use a darker roast, Community Coffee, but you always make New Orleans a passable coffee stop on the road.

MAKE A DARKER ROAST COMMUNITY COFFEE, OR ELSE PETER KING WON'T GIVE YOU BUSINESS ONCE EVERY YEAR! YOU DON'T WANT TO END UP ON THE "MARRIOTT LIST" DO YOU?

k. The week’s definition of pathetic: Yankee fans incessantly booing Robinson Cano on his return to New York. They’d have all turned down three more guaranteed years for $65 million more than the Yankees offered. Right.

l. And don’t blame me for Red Sox fans booing Jacoby Ellsbury. That’s awful too—and, for the record, I was at his first game back at Fenway Park and stood and cheered. To each his own, but the rancor in both cases is stupid and misplaced.

If Peter expects us to not blame him for Red Sox fans booing Jacoby Ellsbury then why does he feel the need to call out Yankees fans in MMQB? It's clear from his experience at Fenway when Ellsbury returned that fans boo players for taking more money elsewhere, so why call out Yankees fans as if them booing Cano is anything more than an example of a team's fans booing an ex-player on that team who left for a big free agent contract?

n. And finally, just when you thought you couldn’t feel any older, Billy Joel turns 65 Friday.

Joel hasn't put an album of new, original pop songs in almost 20 years and has his first hit in the mid-70's. It makes you feel old, but it's not like Bruce Springsteen is young or anything. He's only a year younger than Joel. When still listening to artists you grew up with for the past almost forty years, it should be completely understood they are going to be old.

The Adieu Haiku

Three days and counting.
Our long national nightmare
is almost over.


Peter is clearly referring to Chris Berman heading up ESPN's draft coverage. Only a few more days until having to listen to the draft on mute or not watch ESPN is no longer a problem. Does anyone like Chris Berman? Other than the fact he has a mysterious amount of pull at ESPN, why does the network continue to give him work? It's not like he adds anything to draft coverage or the home run derby. He takes away more than he adds and those events would draw the ratings they do with or without Berman heading up the coverage for ESPN.

Monday, May 5, 2014

1 comments Derek Jeter Has Feelings Too You Know

The Derek Jeter Farewell Tour has begun and is in full swing, which means the "Constant Updates about Derek Jeter on his Farewell Tour" has begun as well. This means never-ending updates on what Derek Jeter is doing, how he feels and whether his last meal in Houston as a member of the Yankees was memorable or just super-memorable. Today, Johnette Howard informs her readers that Derek Jeter has feelings and he isn't a superman, but just a typical man. I think maybe she and her media brethren who fawn over athletes such as Jeter for any little thing they do might be better served to heed this reminder as opposed to being the ones handing out this reminder. Jeter is just a master of hiding his feelings, no matter how many times these brainless sportswriters ask him about his feelings. These sportswriters like Johnette Howard want Derek Jeter to open up to them so badly, it's borderline pathetic. Just give us a tear Derek, just one tear!

Derek Jeter knows full well a great swath of his legend is built upon the idea that he's superhuman when it comes to shrugging off the feelings or pressure that rock other players.

This legend was created and furthered by the national media, who feel the need to subscribe professional athletes the personal characteristics they feel these athletes should have, regardless of whether these personal characteristics are true or not. It's all about making sure the attributes the media wants that athlete to have are reflected in how the public sees that athlete. That's why the downfall of an athlete like Tiger Woods or Lance Armstrong is met with such vitriol and shock, because the attributes the media has subscribed to them are not seen as being true anymore. Armstrong is a cheat who dragged other people down in his efforts to continue cheating, while Tiger Woods isn't a family man who is dedicated to his lovely model wife. Woods' competitive nature apparently extended to off the golf course where he tried to have as many mistresses as possible, while Armstrong's competitive nature led him to using PED's. Those aren't the attributes the media had subscribed to these two athletes though.

So it was interesting that Jeter took great pains to make something clear before he took the field Monday for his last Opening Day at Yankee Stadium.

Derek Jeter stated something of substance! Quick, let's report on it and over analyze what he said!

He was asked twice about the assumption that the fanfare around his season-long goodbye tour would be a pain, not a joy, for him. And it seemed uncharacteristically important for Jeter to correct public opinion.

He's probably tired of being asked about it. I'm annoyed with all the stupid questions about whether he enjoys the fanfare so I can only imagine how he feels.

"The perception is wrong -- I will enjoy it," Jeter said. "Every city I go to, every game I play, I will enjoy it. So what they think, how they 'think' I feel, they're wrong on that one. But at the same time, I get the fact that I have to play a game,

Now Johnette Howard must immediately parse out what Jeter REALLY means in making this statement. Much like how Bob Klapisch took comments Jeter made about PED's in the way he wanted to perceive these comments in order to make Jeter an anti-PED's poster boy, Johnette Howard tells us what Jeter really means in order to inform us that Jeter has feelings and describe what Jeter is really meaning to say. Because, his comments can't just stand alone, they have to have a deeper meaning other than "I enjoy the farewell tour and will miss baseball."

It was Jeter's roundabout way of telling people not to underestimate how much he loves baseball or how badly he's going to actually miss playing, even if he hasn't yet wiped away a tear.

Oh, is that what he was saying? Because it sort of sounded like Jeter was saying, "People think they know how I feel but they are wrong. I try to focus on playing the game." The irony that Jeter's statement was basically saying other people think they know how he feels and Johnette Howard is currently stating that she knows how he feels is too much for me. Howard is parsing what Jeter was really saying by ignoring what Jeter was really saying and doing exactly what Jeter states "people" are doing. I might pass out from this irony. 

He's smart enough to know that every day marks more steps in his long goodbye.

But Johnette Howard isn't smart enough to know that she's doing exactly what Derek Jeter has stated sportswriters tend to do by assuming they know how he feels.

It was the last first day of hearing the Bleacher Creatures call out his name -- just a little louder than usual -- during roll call.

"The last first day." Not that this year is going to be interminable with the countdown to Jeter's final game or anything.

It was seeing Andy Pettitte, Jorge Posada and Mariano Rivera walk out in street clothes for the ceremonial first pitch to honor him, struck by the sight of him being the last of them still in uniform -- another reminder of the passage of time.

These are all things that Derek Jeter feels because this is how Johnette Howard would like to believe this is how Derek Jeter feels.

And it was the sight of Jeter at the pregame news conference microphone, patiently listening to someone remind him how Joe Torre, his longest big league manager, told him not to let success go to his head after he had a terrific season and won his first World Series in their first season together.

And Jeter did not let success go to his head. He upgraded the quality of the attractive brunette he dated and that's the only big change Jeter made after winning his first World Series. Well, there was also that whole situation where George Steinbrenner thought Jeter was staying out too late at the clubs and not focused enough on the Yankees, but that's to be forgotten during the farewell tour. Only good memories allowed.

Smirking a little now, Jeter cracked, "Well, the part of the story you're missing is that I told him the same thing: 'We won a championship, you had a great year managing. Don't screw it up after this.'"

Please Johnette Howard, translate what Jeter actually meant when he said this. We must know.

But Orioles manager Buck Showalter, the Yanks' manager the first year Jeter arrived in the big leagues, put a lot into perspective before Jeter went 1-for-4 in the Yankees' 4-2 win over Baltimore. Like current Yankees manager Joe Girardi (who said, no, he didn't look at Jeter the rookie way back when and just know he'd get 3,000 hits), Showalter scoffed prior to Monday's game about "these scouts who say, 'I knew exactly what he [Jeter] was going to be.'"

Buck Showalter looks like he scoffs at least 30 times per day, so I'm not sure this really means something.

But as for how Jeter did turn out, Showalter deadpanned, "We're excited to see him retire. Same as Mo." Was he happy to be here for such a memorable occasion?

No, he's not happy at all. "Fuck Derek Jeter," says Buck Showalter. Showalter has no interest in being there for this occasion. Great question. This reader feels more informed.

Another Showalter wisecrack: "I'd rather him not be playing today. I mean, seriously. It's like your grandmother making you go out and get switches to whip your own butt with."

Great point. My grandmother always shops for her own switches and would never trust me to go get a switch at Target that would be used to whip my own butt. I would just choose the Switch-o-matic 3001 which has the rubber grip but a soft coating around the actual part of the switch used to beat my ass. That switch is useless when it comes to teaching me a lesson.

And everyone laughed.

Heartily? Did everyone laugh heartily?

But Showalter's overarching point was an important one: To take for granted that Jeter was always destined to become great ignores the rest.

So basically this entire column about Jeter having feelings is really about Johnette Howard wanting to do the typical cookie-cutter fluff piece on Jeter. Great.

It wasn't dumb luck that made Jeter great. Nor was it some total absence of what Jeter called "nerves" or "butterflies" in the "wow moments" of his career. Rather, Jeter emphasized Monday, it was that he felt all of that, but "I hide it well."

WHAT DOES JETER REALLY MEAN BY THIS? TELL US JOHNETTE HOWARD!

"You know, I came up in a culture where you were never promised a job," Jeter reminded everybody. "We had to perform in order to keep our job.

Which differs from today's environment how again? I didn't realize baseball players, especially rookie prospects, were promised jobs without earning those jobs. I must have missed this happening.

That's the mindset that we had going into every season. ... If you didn't do your job, The Boss would get rid of you. So every spring training, every offseason, we trained and prepared.

Again, how is this different from today's game again? I must be missing something. Perhaps this is why Derek Jeter doesn't say much all the time, because if he did then what he did say would sound like the typical cliches coming from an athlete. 

There are folks who wonder if a star as big as Jeter can really be as grounded as all that sounds. Him, have to win a job?

Jeter is talking about when he was a rookie, not talking about right now, you dipshit. Jeter wasn't a big star prior to his first season when he had to fight to win a job. It's like Johnette Howard isn't even listening to what Jeter is saying, probably because she KNOWS what Jeter really means.

Not invoking his superstar privilege Monday when confronted with repeated questions about initially not running hard out of the box in the fifth inning when a ball he hammered down the left-field line turned out to be a double off the wall, not the home run he thought it was?

That's probably because the media didn't batter him into the ground for not hustling because they are too busy deciphering what he really means whenever he speaks and asking the same questions about how it feels to be retiring after this season.

Rather than preen like a sacred cow, Jeter instead acknowledged he screwed up with a series of droll jokes -- each of them funnier than the last.

It seems Robinson Cano's downfall was that he didn't know any jokes. If he knew jokes, the New York media would have totally laid off him for not hustling every time ran to first base. Tell jokes, make the people happy so they lay off you. That's apparently the rule.

The best one? Responding to an unrelated question about whether it's going to be awkward to see fans applaud him just for grounding into a double play. Jeter circled back to the ribbing for having to leg out the double and dryly cracked, "Maybe they were cheering for me hustling."

Oh Jetes, you kidder! Let's all have a good laugh, go get a drink and hope the 40,000th question about his retirement will get Derek Jeter to cry a little. THE SEASON DOESN'T END UNTIL THE JETER IS CRYING LIKE A BABY!

But Jeter has said self-deprecating things like that forever. And it's hard to fake being something you're not for 20 years.

Which is why Jeter is clearly a robot without feelings, despite Howard's protestations to the contrary. For 20 years Jeter has been an unemotional robot. It can't be an act. He must really be a robot who has no emotions. I'm just glad Johnette Howard has gotten to the bottom of this issue and this article wasn't just an excuse to write a fluff piece about Jeter.

Jeter has feelings, all right. And high personal standards.

Especially in women. If he wakes up one day looks at Minka Kelly, sees the beginning of fat around a thigh, then it's onto the next attractive brunette. The Jeter doesn't play around with bitches wearing cellulite. Cellulite is never in fashion.

Like those other Yankees icons, he has loved this ride. He will dearly miss this. He gets how special it's been.

Jeter doesn't even have to say this, Johnette Howard knows it's true because that's what she wants Jeter to say. Now cry, Jeter, cry and make Johnette Howard happy. It's all that's left to give the people, just one tear.

"Everybody's human," he said. "It's just ..."

Yeah, we know.

"I've got a job to do," he repeated.

I think what Jeter is really wanting to say is, "Stop asking me the same dumbass questions about whether I will miss baseball."

So even if this is his long goodbye, the takeaway Monday was this: Jeter is just determined not to let it become maudlin.

But even so, the media will be damned if they don't write the same "Jeter is going to miss baseball even though he won't say he will baseball" column that is just a cheap excuse to write a boring, by-the-numbers Jeter fluff piece. 

Sunday, May 4, 2014

0 comments The Red Sox are Furious Michael Pineda Dared to Do What Most Pitchers Do Anyway

I feel like the Red Sox have been getting more and more upset recently over wrongs done to them of late. Whether it's being mad in October Jhonny Peralta was eligible to participate in the playoffs, being mad in April Jhonny Peralta was eligible to participate in the playoffs, and now they are angry Michael Pineda had the audacity to blatantly cheat while playing them. Life is making the Red Sox team angry more frequently these days than it used to.

I'm not here to defend Michael Pineda. Obvious stupidity can not be defended. I would like to point out that nearly every pitcher uses some sort of goo to gain an advantage. It's not right according to the rules, but if it's wrong then MLB should crack down on it and stop the whole "Well, if we can't see it too much then we won't say anything" attitude directed towards putting goo on the ball. Pineda was stupid, but for the Red Sox to be furious over this when they know pitchers cheat? Well, that's pretty stupid also. Before he got caught against the Red Sox, Pineda has used the same goo against the Red Sox the week before. When Andy Martino of the "Daily News" asked Red Sox players about it this is what they said:

“With the cold weather, you’re looking to get a grip,” Boston manager John Farrell said after Thursday’s game. “I can’t say it’s uncommon, that guys would look to create a little bit of a grip. Typically, you’re not trying to be as blatant.’

The Red Sox were not annoyed with Pineda for cheating against them, but did poke him for being so obvious. It’s like, dude, keep this stuff in-house, please.

Capuano and Farrell are pitchers, so we can’t close this discussion until we hear from the other side. 

“I have pine tar on my bat,” Dustin Pedroia said. “That’s a non-issue. I thought he was better than us tonight. . . . They’ve got a difficult job. Pitching is pretty tough. I play second base. I don’t try to pitch.”
David Ortiz: “Everybody uses pine tar.”

It's not that Pineda was cheating, it's that he was so obvious about cheating. This really doesn't make sense to me, but the Red Sox were furious. It's fine to cheat them (just as long as you aren't Jhonny Peralta and at one point cheated and are no longer cheating...playing the Red Sox while not using PED's but having used PED's previously is enraging to them, but actively cheating in putting a foreign substance on the ball while playing the Red Sox is okay as long as they don't see it), but don't let them know you are cheating them even though they already know you are cheating them.

And of course it's perfectly fine if the Red Sox pitchers are cheating, but that was in the World Series so it was totally different from this happening in a regular season game. 

The Red Sox become aware in the fourth inning, but didn’t complain, because every team does it — and this particular ballclub actually dealt with accusations of using foreign substances twice in 2013, once with Clay Buchholz, and once with Jon Lester during the World Series.

But hey, it's fine for Buchholz and Lester to use a foreign substance because it wasn't obvious. Well, it was obvious but the Cardinals didn't push the issue, so it wasn't a slap in the face to the Cardinals like Pineda using pine tar was a slap in the face to the Red Sox. They are completely different situations, so that's why the Red Sox are in the right to be pissed-off that Pineda was so obvious with his cheating.

So on to the article by Bob Nightengale regarding the Red Sox righteous indignation over what many pitchers do, but manage to hide well. 

They should have been euphoric that New York Yankees starter Michael Pineda was suspended for 10 days for using pine tar in Wednesday's game and immediately accepted his punishment.
Instead, they were furious, outraged by Pineda's actions.
No, no, no. The Red Sox weren't outraged by Pineda's actions, but were outraged he was obvious with how he was cheating. See, if they were outraged by his actions they would be seen as hypocrites because just a few days earlier they admitted most pitchers use pine tar and their pitchers have been accused of using a foreign substance. So instead, they go the irrational route and get mad, not at Pineda's actions, but at the fact Pineda was so obviously cheating them. It's fine to rig the game, and it's fine for me to know the game is rigged, just don't let me know how you are rigging the game. 
"I thought (Wednesday) night was a slap in our face," Red Sox veteran starter Jake Peavy told USA TODAY Sports. "It was disrespectful. And not well thought of, either.

"I mean, you're on national TV. You put it on your neck. You're the starting pitcher. And you don't think the cameras are going to catch that?"

I love the sport of baseball, but there are a lot of things I will never understand about it. I don't understand the clenched devotion to tradition to the point nothing new is allowed to infiltrate the game, I won't understand how many of the current players have the same linear type of thinking many of those who cover the game have, and I won't ever understand why it's okay for pitchers to cheat as long as they aren't obvious about it.

The Red Sox don't want to act like the ethics police. 

Yeah, but that's exactly what they are sounding like by drawing an ethical line between cheating and being obvious about cheating. This is the same line most of baseball seems to have drawn, granted, but other teams have thought Red Sox pitchers have cheated and managed to not call the Red Sox out about it. 

They've got pitchers who have drawn suspicions, too. Clay Buchholz was called out by the Toronto Blue Jays broadcast crew last season for having what appeared to be sunscreen on his arms. Jon Lester was caught by TV cameras with a strange-looking green substance on his mound in last year's World Series.

But the difference is these weren't obvious signs of cheating. We know these aren't obvious signs of cheating because the opposing team didn't protest to the umpires about Buchholz's sunscreen and Lester's green substance. So the Red Sox are essentially mad they tattled to the umpires about Pineda's pine tar. I don't blame them necessarily, because it was obvious, but the difference in Lester having green goo in his glove and Pineda having pine tar is the Red Sox chose to have the umpire inspect Pineda while Mike Matheny chose to not have the umpires inspect Lester. The Red Sox don't want to draw an ethical line, but they are drawing an ethical line by calling Pineda out when other teams haven't called the Red Sox pitchers out in the past.

Red Sox manager John Farrell actually looked sheepish while asking crew chief Gerry Davis to check out Pineda in the second inning. Wednesday, he even said that he didn't mind if pitchers use pine tar, but there had to be some discretion.

"But that was just so obvious," said Red Sox starter John Lackey, the winning pitcher Wednesday.

That's Lackey playing the ethical police. If it's obvious, it isn't all right. If it's not obvious, it's fine. Of course the obviousness of the cheating is wholly determined by the Red Sox in this situation, but I'm sure that's something they don't consider. I consider Pineda's pine tar to have been extremely obvious, but I also think Lester's ectoplasm-filled glove was pretty obvious as well. Again, the difference is the Cardinals didn't request the umpire investigate Lester's glove. So the Cardinals chose not to be the ethical police.

"We took the high road in New York and didn't say anything, even when he had gobs of pine tar all over him," Peavy said. "Then, he comes out and says what he did (that he used dirt, not pine tar), and we still didn't say anything.

"And then he comes out and does that?"

I mean, I do agree completely with this. Pineda was incredibly obvious about what he was doing. I just don't know if being obvious about using pine tar is disrespectful. I would think just using pine tar would be disrespectful alone, but what do I know, I've never played baseball in the majors and I like to think logically.

Despite the fierce rivalry, the Red Sox really hope they won't have to monitor Pineda again the next time the clubs meet.

But again, they don't want to be the ethical police. It's just if Pineda cheats again then he better be very, very secretive about it. Use pine tar to get a better grip on the ball, announce you are using pine tar, but don't make the place where you stash the pine tar obvious. By the way, Craig Kimbrel keeps his pine tar on his hat. Is that considered "too obvious?" I need an unwritten rule telling me what's obvious and what isn't. I've noticed for three years Kimbrel has pine tar on his hat. Look at nearly any picture of him and you can see the pine tar.

Here. 

Here. 

Here. 

Here. 

It's been obvious to me for three years now. I guess that passes the unwritten rule of non-obviousness and there's no need for any MLB team to ever mention it to the umpire when Kimbrel enters the game.

"We're not looking to bust people for ticky-tack things,'' Red Sox catcher David Ross said. "That's not what we're about. There are always issues that come up, and there are unwritten rules.

"But you can't have obvious incidents like that.''

I agree, you can't have a pitcher keeping some green slime in his dark glove during the World Ser---wait, I mean you can't a player put the pine tar on his neck and not expect an unwritten rule to be violated. That's the rule. You can't violate the unwritten rule. It's in the rule that isn't written that you can't violate the unwritten rule. 

And yes, Pineda was very obvious. There's no doubt about that. One person's "obvious" is another person's "not obvious," but I guess that's where the unwritten rule sorts it all out. 

In a bizarre law that only baseball folks can understand, it's quite acceptable to cheat. You just can't be so blatant about it.

"I don't think that's silly,'' Ross said. "We're out for what's best for baseball, and that's to perform to your best ability, without cheating.''

But, but, non-blatant cheating is still cheating. I'm still cheating on my wife (I'm not) even if she isn't aware that I'm cheating. Whether she stays blissfully ignorant or finds out and has the umpire eject me from the house is irrelevant in terms of what's right and wrong. In this case, "to perform to your best ability, without cheating," includes cheating that players aren't aware exists or doesn't seem obvious. So Jon Lester either forgot his child's ectoplasm in his glove and was not cheating or had a gooey substance he was using to get a better grip on the ball and was cheating. He wasn't "performing to the best of his ability, without cheating" in the latter case and David Ross has no right to be furious with Pineda if his team's pitchers are using pine tar too and he is hiding behind a "best for baseball" mantra regarding the use of pine tar.

Who really knows what constitutes cheating, anymore? Pitchers hide substances under their sleeves or in their glove.

I know what constitutes cheating. According to the rules, using any foreign substance on the ball constitutes cheating.

"Guys don't really about talk about that stuff,'' Peavy says. "I don't know what's common. I don't use pine tar.''

"Well, before I go out,'' Peavy said, being brutally candid, "I put shaving cream on my hands. And I know some people put sunscreen on their hands. Or rosin. You just try to get some grip.''

But this is okay because Peavy doesn't make it obvious he is putting shaving cream on his hands and doesn't have a gob of shaving cream on his neck, nor does he keep sunscreen in a fanny pack around his waist while on the mound. So it's fine. You know, just like it's fine for a player to use PED's as long as he doesn't shoot them up at first base.

"Having shaving cream is not like a foreign substance on your hand. You can't really see it, or really even feel it.

Then why put it on if it doesn't help and Peavy can't feel it? It's pointless to use a substance that doesn't work, right? Peavy wouldn't use sunscreen or shaving cream if he didn't believe it helped him grip the ball. Plus, any time someone sees shaving cream in the Red Sox locker room then that should be red flag. It's not like shaving is a popular habit in the clubhouse.

Red Sox catcher A.J. Pierzynski, who says he has never worn pine tar for any of his pitchers, insists he has no problem with the opposition using it.

Yeah, but David Ross says "best for baseball, perform to the best of your ability, no cheating..." and it makes him angry Pineda would so obviously violate this rule that isn't apparently a rule. 

"I'm not naive,'' Pierzynski told USA TODAY Sports, "I know pretty much every pitcher uses something. Whether it's sweat, rosin, sunscreen, hair gel, whatever it is, they're using something."

I can't wait for the day a pitcher uses the Cream and the Clear to get a better grip on the baseball. It's a combination of using PED's and putting a foreign substance on the ball. Would this be a 65-game suspension or a 10-game suspension?

The Yankees can't be absolved in the suspension. Yankees manager Joe Girardi took responsibility for failing to notice that Pineda walked onto the field in the second inning with pine tar, and GM Brian Cashman said the entire organization must accept blame.

Yeah, where is Derek Jeter being a leader when you need him to be one? The Jeter should not have let Pineda leave the clubhouse looking like that.

"I think he just got caught up in the moment,'' Girardi says, "We'll continue to educate him.''

The baseball world will be watching along with him.

Just don't look too hard, because then the cheating that isn't a big deal suddenly becomes "obvious" and therefore becomes a big deal. Cheating isn't fine, unless it pertains to putting a foreign substance on the ball, but it's not cheating if it's not obvious. Some things I just won't ever understand about baseball.

Friday, May 2, 2014

3 comments Bill Simmons, Still Out of Ideas for a Column, Essentially Writes Another Mailbag

It's getting bad, you know. One of the most frustrating parts of Bill Simmons' writing is he just doesn't give a shit anymore. He's content with sticking with the feel and format of his old columns and doesn't care to challenge himself. While some writers grow and mature with their audience, Bill's writing has stayed in the same place for a decade now. Sure, it helps him capture the key demographic that ESPN/Grantland wants, but his writing doesn't show the maturity of a person who has been writing for almost 15 years. I believe Bill Simmons has not wanted to write columns for a while now. It doesn't help he is out of ideas and so what has happened is a constant stream of uninspired columns and mailbags, while Bill sorts out all of his duties as Grantland editor and tries to figure out how to continue to fool his loyal Simmonites into believing what he's writing is fresh, new material and not the same recycled material and jokes as the same recycled material and jokes he has been doing for 4-5 years now. It's getting harder the busier Bill gets. Fortunately for him, the Simmonites will devour absolutely anything Bill writes, no matter the quality, so there is no need to put effort into what he writes. Today, Bill has 33 burning questions from Round 1 of the playoffs which essentially is another mailbag from him, except this time he admits to writing the questions himself.

Do you realize road teams have won 10 of 19 playoff games so far? Do you realize we’ve had 297 officiating controversies already? Do you realize three 50-win coaches are in real danger of getting canned within the next 10 days? Do you realize we have an 8-seed beating a 1-seed and a 7-seed beating a 2-seed? Do you realize Indiana is slapping together the Mother of All NBA Swoons?

No Bill, we didn't realize this until you just told us about it. Thank God you are here to interpret all NBA-related events for us. You are the only prism through which the NBA playoffs can be understood. Enlighten us all.

Do you realize a Wizards-Clippers Finals is in play? Repeat: Do you realize a Wizards-Clippers Finals is in play????? And that the odds are only 65-to-1 right now??? And that it’s actually a good bet at those odds??????????? WHAT IS HAPPENING?????????

The question mark on your keyboard is broken? You are killing time to make up for a lack of original, creative material by asking the same question over and over again?

Without further ado, let’s tackle 33 burning questions from Round 1.

It's a mailbag that's not a mailbag. Because Bill has already done quite a few mailbags recently and it would be crazy to do another one, right?

Q: Could the Wizards really make the Eastern Conference finals despite whiffing on 2013’s no. 3 overall pick (Otto Porter) and 2011’s no. 6 overall pick (Jan Vesely)?

Let’s flip that around. The Wizards could make the Eastern Conference finals because they didn’t whiff on 2010’s no. 1 overall pick (John Wall) and 2012’s no. 3 overall pick (Bradley Beal).

Because I had an unnatural love for Bradley Beal coming out of college, I have to point out that Bill wasn't exactly high on Bradley Beal coming out of college. Most likely this is because Bill was just saying things about Beal out of his ass like,

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

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

If you follow the link I proved that (a) Bill is an idiot who doesn't really know what he was talking about and (b) Beal played well in the NCAA Tournament and I pointed out Beal was 18 years old so 34% from three-point range isn't terrible. But don't worry, Bill knew nothing about Beal and admitted it,

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

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

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

So after watching 10 minutes of YouTube videos of Bradley Beal, Bill Simmons announces that he is like Mike Miller, not Eric Gordon. It's nearly impossible for me to take Bill Simmons seriously knowing how often he talks out of his ass. Does anyone watch Bradley Bill and say, "Man, he reminds me of Mike Miller!"? I would doubt it. Okay, rant done. I had to point out that Bill loves Beal now, but wasn't exactly a fan before Beal was drafted. Hindsight is wonderful isn't it?

They turned Vesely and next year’s first-rounder into Professor Andre Miller and Marcin Gortat, two veterans who made an impact. And Trevor Ariza wouldn’t be thriving without young Porter breathing down his neck. Fine, that’s not true. There’s been no neck-breathing whatsoever. Everything else is true.

Wait, someone just reminded me that Ernie traded the no. 5 pick in 2009 for Mike Miller and Randy Foye, which means he whiffed on three top-six lottery picks in five years. According to the Atrocious GM Summit rulebook, the “David Kahn Corollary” says that at least three top-six whiffs in five years earns you an automatic invite. So, Ernie is coming back no matter what happens! I’m glad we settled this.

See? Bill is still milking the same recycled and tired jokes 4-5 years after he originally tells them. The Atrocious GM Summit, how hilarious!

The Atrocious GM Summit should only serve to remind Bill's readers that at one point in his writing career he actually gave a shit about trying to write creatively and wasn't up his own ass. Those days are gone.

Q: Can the Wizards really make the Eastern finals when their fans are sending emails during playoff games like, “I’d like to report an attempted murder — Randy Wittman is trying to kill me”?

Fans complain about their team's coach no matter how much success that team has had or is currently having. Fans complaining about the coach/manager is going to happen no matter what. So this means nothing, except it's another weak attempt for Bill to try and be clever.

The good news for Wizards fans: Just in the past decade, Alvin Gentry and Mike Brown coached in Round 3; Flip Saunders took two different teams to Round 3; and Scott Brooks made two conference finals and the actual Finals. Don’t those four guys make you feel a little better about Randy Wittman?

Do the Wizards have LeBron James or Kevin Durant? No? Ok.

The NBA isn’t complicated — to blow a series when you have a more talented team, you’d need an offensive game plan that’s two steps below rudimentary, no defensive mind-set whatsoever, a slew of head-scratching rotation decisions, an overall emphasis on aggressively sloppy play, a stubborn refusal to change anything that’s not working, a lack of recognition for basic stuff like “That guy is headed for 40 points again, maybe we try something different defensively,” and the confidence to keep making terrible game-management choices in the final minute without learning from the previous game’s terrible game-management choices. 

That's it. That's exactly how to blow a series. You better believe Bill that these are the steps on how to blow a series with a more talented team. After all he DID write the Book of Basketball.

Q: Can the Wizards really make the Eastern Conference finals when they’re the Washington Wizards?

Now THIS is an obstacle.

The Wizards actual talent isn't necessarily an obstacle, it's the Wizards history of not being a very good team that is the real obstacle. After all, I'm sure the young Wizards squad is greatly affected by the history of basketball in Washington they aren't fully even aware exists.

My favorite Wizards fact: Since Wes Unseld and Elvin Hayes left the franchise in 1981, they haven’t employed a single player whose jersey could be retired. Not one! That’s impossible!

Well, it's true so it's not entirely impossible.

My second favorite Wizards fact: I sent House the last two graphs and he wrote back, “You forgot about Ike Austin for Ben Wallace. And Mark Price’s foot. And Gheorge’s pituitary gland … I’ll have more later.” I didn’t hear from him for another 24 hours.

Can you imagine trying to have a conversation with Bill and his friends? Would this conversation contain any other type of discussion outside of whining about their favorite team? Yes, the Wizards/Bullets have been terrible, but every team has made bad decisions over the history of the franchise. Some have made more than others, but more importantly, I'm not sure I wouldn't characterize House's last two "graphs" as a "fact" any more than I would consider it the listing of more Wizards/Bullets missteps over the last 20 years.

Q: Nene is lighting up Joakim Noah!!! LIGHTING HIM UP!!! Also, am I on drugs right now?

You’re not on drugs; you’re fine. Nobody ever doubted Nene’s talent, as evidenced by his earning more than $86 million since 2006 (with another $39 million guaranteed through 2016) despite never averaging 15 points or eight rebounds in any season.

Yes, "you're" not on drugs. By the way, Bill is writing and answering the questions himself, so "you're" not on drugs should be "I'm" not on drugs. But that's beside the point.

We know Nene has talent because he has been well-paid throughout his NBA career and there's no way an NBA team would overpay a player who didn't have talent, right Chris Kaman, Rashard Lewis, Carlos Boozer, Ben Gordon, and Tyrus Thomas?

These guys have some talent, but the NBA (and other sports) has a long history of paying players a lot of money who don't necessarily have talent equivalent to the money that player is getting paid. So the fact Nene got paid $86 million since 2006 doesn't mean Nene has talent and his talent shouldn't be questioned.

Over everything else, you gotta love how HARD Washington is playing: You have Beal and Wall trying to make names for themselves, Ariza and Gortat playing for new contracts, and Nene taking the Noah matchup personally for whatever reason. Yes, yes, yes. They can make the Eastern finals.

What you really have to love is Bill Simmons lauding a professional sports team for playing hard in the playoffs. If I were a lazy person I would state this is the problem with the NBA and why some people don't like to watch the sport. It's not just the perception that the players don't play hard, but a diehard NBA fan like Bill Simmons actually takes the time to congratulate an NBA team for playing hard in the playoffs...like that's not expected or anything.

Q: If Phil Jackson learned the triangle offense from Tex Winter, then who was Scott Brooks’s mentor for Oklahoma City’s “Clogged Toilet” offense? Was it just Mike Brown, or were Vinny Del Negro and Mike Woodson involved as well?

See how creative and hilarious these questions are? Bill isn't recycling old jokes at all. These jokes about Vinny Del Negro, Mike Woodson, and Mike Brown aren't old at all. Hey, maybe Bill could slip an Art Shell joke in there for good measure as well. That's still funny and relevant, right?

Here’s my working theory: Early in Brooks’s playing career, he played in Minnesota for Jimmy Rodgers, the longtime Celtics assistant and honorary head coach of the Ghastly 1980s NBA Permafro Team (a.k.a. The Jack Sikma All-Stars).

Let's see:

1. Half-assed theory Bill believes is more clever than it really is. Check.

2. Mention of the Boston Celtics. Check.

3. Mention of a fictional "All-Stars" team that Bill has put together. Check.

All that remains to be included is a reference to an 80's movie and all of Bill's usual material would be contained in this paragraph...or "graph" as Bill seems to think the kids say.

So Jimmy learned from the Clogged Toilet master. And eventually, Brooks learned from Jimmy, so it’s something of a Clogged Toilet coaching tree. But every time I see OKC barely getting KD the ball 35 feet from the basket — or even better, taking 15 seconds to post him up on the low block, followed by KD dribbling back behind the 3-point line as soon as he gets it — I always picture K.C. Jones and Jimmy Rodgers nodding proudly.

Just remember, Bill is writing these questions AND answering them. So if he truly gave a shit about what he was writing this could be a good column due to the fact he has complete creative control over what is being asked and written. Instead...well, this is what happens.

Q: Are Boston fans allowed to make fun of McHale mangling this Portland series after he helped the Celtics win three titles, clotheslined Rambis, costarred on the greatest NBA team of all time (the ’86 Celts), played on a broken foot in the 1987 Finals, made a cameo on Cheers, got his no. 32 retired, and traded KG to Boston in 2007 over accepting a slightly better deal from the Lakers?
Nope. Not allowed.

Boston Celtics. Just in case you forgot. Boston Celtics. They have to be discussed at some point even if these are burning questions about Round 1 of the playoffs. After all, Boston Celtics. They may not be in Round 1 but this is the second reference to them. The Boston Sports Guy.

Q: The Heat are still the league’s best team, they still have the league’s best player, and they’re still going for a historic three-peat … and yet they’re something like the 27th most relevant story line right now. What happened?

Yeah, what about the story lines for the Heat? I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact the other playoff series are actually exciting while the Heat were slowly tearing down and defeating the woefully undermatched Bobcats. Not at all. Fans like to watch the exciting playoff series and the Heat-Bobcats series was simply Charlotte delaying the inevitable. The Heat weren't losing that series, even if the NBA has to make sure the Heat got 85 free throw attempts in a Game 7.

It’s a combination of Heat fatigue (four solid years of people endlessly dissecting them),

"People" endlessly dissecting them? Doesn't Bill mean "ESPN" endlessly dissecting them? This is an astounding lack of self-awareness considering Bill's employer had an entire portion of ESPN.com dedicated to the Heat called the "Heat Check."

their glaringly obvious on/off switch (which they tried to keep to “off” for both Charlotte games), their undeniably bored crowds (is there a worse playoff game to watch on TV, from an atmosphere standpoint, than Miami when they’re heavily favored at home?),

Perhaps the Heat were "off" because the Miami crowd around them were bored and the Bobcats weren't a very good team who ended up playing with their best player barely able to run up-and-down the court? There could be a correlation here.

and the inevitability of the Heat making a fourth straight Finals (thanks to the East collapsing around them).

It also helps the Heat's chances of making a fourth straight Finals that they have the NBA's best player and a really good team around him. There's that too.

Q: If Doc Rivers fought Jermaine O’Neal in Game 2, would that have been the greatest moment of 2014?
 
No — Pero Antic fighting David West would have been the greatest moment of 2014.

Speaking of fighting...the Boston Celtics! What's that you say? How aren't the Celtics relevant in a column about playoff questions? Bill just brought the conversation back around to the Celtics so they are totally relevant.

But I’m glad this came up. Once upon a time, the Celtics paid O’Neal $12 million over two years to be their backup big man.

Oh yeah, Bill is completely pulling this conversation back around to the Celtics. It's all he knows how to do.

O’Neal played 24 games in 2011, then disappeared because of knee and wrist injuries. During the ensuing six-month lockout, he never bothered to get surgery for his left wrist — for reasons that remain unclear — then reinjured it two months into the lockout season. What happened next? He opted for season-ending surgery over, you know, playing in a little pain because that’s what you’re supposed to do when you make $6 million a year.

Bill goes further into the story while whining that Ryan Hollins and Greg Stiemsma played big minutes in the 2012 Eastern Conference Finals because O'Neal was injured. Just know that this is very important to know in order for Bill to answer his own question about whether O'Neal and Rivers fighting would have been the greatest moment of 2014.

I’d bet anything that Doc sees O’Neal miraculously flying around like he’s seven years younger in this Warriors-Clips series and thinks to himself, That’s the guy who quit on me two years ago. Could you blame him?

No, I can't blame him. Let's talk more about how the Celtics lost the 2012 Eastern Conference finals with the Celtics "barely" (yes, Bill wrote "barely" except he of course put it in italics) losing to the Heat because Jermaine O'Neal didn't get surgery on his left wrist. This talk would be super-important in a column about Round 1 of the 2014 NBA playoffs. Bill has to mention the Celtics and he has to do a little bit of whining about why the Celtics didn't make the NBA Finals in 2012.

Q: Is Chris Paul better than you think, worse than you think or exactly what you think?

Because it’s the Internet and people have to come up with stuff to talk about every day, you knew this list would start glowing in neon the moment Chris looked shaky in a playoff game …
 
NUMBER OF PLAYOFF SERIES WON BY THE LOTTERY CLASS OF 2005
 

Andrew Bynum: 10
Deron Williams: 4
Marvin Williams: 3
Channing Frye: 2
Chris Paul: 2
Andrew Bogut: 1
Ray Felton: 1


I like how Bill blames this list on the Internet when this is the first I personally have ever seen this list. Maybe I just missed it. It's fun to read Bill talking about this list's existence and how it seems he just had no choice but to publish it in this column. Not his fault. His hands were tied.

It's important to remember Andrew Bynum has played with Pau Gasol and Kobe Bryant and Chris Paul isn't that far behind any other player on this list. Paul was stuck in New Orleans for quite a few years with David West as the other best player on the team. Let's be a little fair.

What happened? He helped blow Game 1 on Saturday, and naturally “What has Chris Paul ever won?” became a thing. So here’s a quick story: The following morning, Steve Nash dropped into our NBA Countdown vortex to shoot a few segments with us. During our preshow meeting, I mentioned that Paul was getting criticized for his Game 1 performance, and asked if it might affect someone even as good as Paul if something like “What has he ever won?” morphed into a national story line. What happened? Nash made a face and said, “Chris is the best point guard in the league, it’s not even close. When you have the ball in your hands all the time, you’re going to make mistakes sometimes.”

(The answer: Actually, Chris Paul is better than you think — as you saw last night, when he masterfully fouled Steph Curry on the game’s deciding play in a way that was never, ever, EVER getting called.)

Oh, so we have the answer because Steve Nash said sometimes a player makes mistakes when the ball is in that player's hands. I guess that closes the book on this question then. I do have another question though...what was the point of this question from the perspective of the person reading this column? Why was this fake question even asked? Was it for Bill to be forced to bust out with the list (against his will nonetheless!) of playoff series won by the lottery class of 2005, was it for Bill to remind us that he knows Steve Nash, or was it to kill space in a column where Bill just doesn't have a hell of a lot to say?

I think it's all of the above.

Q: Will we ever figure out what happened to the 2014 Pacers? (Marc Stein)
It’s almost more fun NOT knowing. But I think we know. Here’s the pie-chart breakdown …

Bill did this a few weeks ago where he definitely answered this question in other pie-chart breakdown that didn't involve a pie-chart so it wasn't really a pie-chart breakdown.

Here's how the percentages shook out:

The Chemistry Thing: 40%
Lance Has This: 25%
Identity Loss: 25%
The Collective Slump: 10%

So I'm not sure why Bill is answering the same question yet again in pie-chart form without an actual pie-chart so it isn't really a pie-chart breakdown. He answered the question in early April so I'm not sure how much could really chang---

30 PERCENT: Pat Riley named it “The Disease of Me,” a chemistry-killing toxin that afflicts certain teams after they’ve hit it big.

Wait, what? These percentages have changed drastically in the last four weeks? Outside of Bill making the percentages up in both cases out of his ass (fine, that's the real answer to the question I'm about to pose...Bill just makes shit up, so look no further than these changing pie-chart percentages for proof of this), how come these percentages have changed in such a short time?

But you know the nuts and bolts by now: Lance Stephenson thought he was an All-Star, Paul George thought he was a superstar, Danny Granger disappeared, the big guys stopped getting the ball … before you knew it, a selfless team started thinking selfishly.

So I wonder whether this is filed under "Identity Loss" or "Chemistry Thing" in Bill's original pie-chart column about the Pacers struggles? 

20 PERCENT: Wore down because the starting five played too many minutes.

Funny, this wasn't mentioned in Bill's original pie-chart. It's almost like Bill is making things up as he goes along. Bill can't even take the time to be consistent with something he wrote less than a month ago.

10 PERCENT: No superstar scorer to stop the slide and say, “It’s OK, everybody, I got this.”

And here 10% was originally allocated to "The Collective Slump." I guess Bill thinks the Pacers no longer underwent a collective slump and now thinks they needed a superstar scorer to stop the slide.

20 PERCENT: Actually, they had Lance Stephenson saying, “It’s OK, everybody, I got this.” And that’s even worse.

And here "Lance Has This" was 25% of the problem less than a month ago. Perhaps Lance "having it" became less of a problem over the past four weeks.

20 PERCENT: Are we sure they were ever that good? Last season, they won 49 games and had a plus-4 point differential in a lousy conference.

Stop using "we" whenever you are wrong about something. Also, Bill is brilliant at using hindsight isn't he? If you ever need someone to tell you the problem with a team AFTER that problem has occurred and the issue is obvious to everyone, then Bill Simmons is your man. His masterful use of hindsight has no peer, except for maybe Gregg Easterbrook.

I’d say we overrated these guys except for one thing:

STOP SAYING "WE" WHEN "YOU" ARE WRONG! "WE" didn't think anything.

The Indiana guys look like they hate playing with each other — they’re interacting like divorced parents who just ran into each other at their son’s youth soccer game. It’s crazy.

That's exactly what it's like. There's no ubuntu in Indiana. That's the real problem. How Bill isn't now a full-time NBA analyst with insights such as this evades common sense and logic.

Q: Is Roy Hibbert tradable, sort of untradable, or totally untradable?

Sort of tradable. Really tall centers who can block shots and score points are in high demand.

Working against Hibbert …

• He’s guaranteed $30.4 million combined over the next two seasons.

• He turned into Hasheem Thabeet about 10 weeks ago. Couldn’t Thabeet match Hibbert’s production since February 4 if he played 29 minutes a game? You’re telling me 8.6 points, 5.2 rebounds and 1.8 blocks and 39 percent shooting isn’t doable for Thabeet?

Hasheem Thabeet is terrible. I am not sure he could put up 8.6 points, 5.2 rebounds and 1.8 blocks in 29 minutes. Let's cut the hyperbole and be real about Hasheem Thabust's terribleness.

The Law of Mutombo tells us this: You never know when a tall center is about to lose it, but when they lose it, you know right away. 

I feel like Bill says this about every athlete. It's probably not true, but I feel like he is always saying, "When Player X loses it, it happens fast." Also, there is no "Law of Mutumbo." Fortunately, Bill will forget he named this law after Mutumbo and will name it after another tall center in a month or so. It's not like Bill even cares what he's writing at this point.

Even if Hibbert is only 27, what if this wasn’t a slump? What if the Law of Mutombo struck him early?

What if this fictional curse did strike early? Is there a fictional "All-Star" team that Bill could put Hibbert on while making an overly-involved comparison of Hibbert to a man in his 30's who used to go out on the club scene and pick up women but now is having a declining success rate, along with a name-dropped reference to Jimmy Kimmel? Can we make this happen? Who says "no"?

Working for Hibbert …

Too many teams value (and overvalue) advanced metrics, which means at least two or three teams would value Hibbert’s rim protection numbers. If he’s standing in front of the rim and you’re driving to the basket, it’s hard to score. You just need to put him in that specific situation, and not situations like “chasing Antic out to the 3-point line” or “trying to catch Anthony Davis sprinting down the court.”

Well, that's good news for the NBA since the trend isn't headed towards centers who can shoot from the outside and don't necessarily spend most of their time on the low block.

You take a flyer on him in Year 1, and if it doesn’t work out, you have a big expiring in Year 2. Wouldn’t Charlotte and Dallas do this tomorrow? Wouldn’t the Celtics sniff around?

That's the fourth reference to the Celtics in a column that is supposed to be about Round 1 of the NBA playoffs. That's four references for a non-playoff team while the Raptors aren't mentioned at all, the Grizzlies are mentioned in passing, the Nets aren't mentioned at all, and the Spurs/Mavericks are both mentioned in passing. Meanwhile the Celtics are mentioned or referenced five times in this column. Imagine how often Bill would talk about them if they were actually in Round 1 of the playoffs.

Wouldn’t OKC have to consider something with Hibbert and Kendrick Perkins’s expiring as the principals? I refuse to believe he’s untradable.

You are the one who asked the question, jackass.

We were just celebrating him two months ago!

"We" were celebrating him two months ago weren't "we"!

But I liked how a reader named Trent in Indy summed up the Hibbert issue … “You know when you drive your car and hear a weird sound, but ignore it? Then you hear it again louder, but you ignore it because you’re really busy? Then you hear it constantly, but you are now

I'm going to have to stop it here. Trent from Indy seems to be the type of guy who takes selfies of himself in the mirror and then uses it as his avatar on Twitter, because he's so damned impressed with himself. This is an overly-long analogy that is specifically intended to get Bill's attention and get a response. Get your own writing style. Why can't Bill and his readers simply just say something as opposed to using an overly-long analogy? An analogy is partially used in order to shorten an explanation, not lengthen it.

worried about the potentially big expense that might be represented by that sound, so you ignore it still? Then your car won’t start, so you take it to the shop and find out it’s even worse than you’d imagined, and so many expensive things are wrong with your car that you decide to fix the bare minimum of the problems in order to sell the piece of crap and make it someone else’s problem? That’s Roy Hibbert.”

Or as a normal person who is actually capable of expressing himself without an overly-long analogy would say, "Roy Hibbert is a problem that can't be ignored and won't simply go away on his own."

Q: Did you know that, since 1985, only MJ, Magic, Shaq, Kobe, Iverson, T-Mac and Aldridge have scored 42-plus points in back-to-back playoff games?

I just furrowed my brow.

Thanks for the update on the status of your brow. My life is now more complete.

Q: What’s crazier — that only three rookies cracked a 10-man rotation for a 2014 playoff team, or that those three rookies are Mason Plumlee, Steven Adams and Cody Zeller?

At some point, we’re going to need a computer to simulate a seven-game series between the 2000 Draft All-Stars and the 2013 Draft All-Stars to officially figure out the worst draft of all time.

Every year Bill says the draft isn't very good. Can we give the 2013 draft class two years in the NBA before writing them off? It doesn't sound like that much to ask.

Q: Is anyone on Miami better at basketball than they were a year ago?

They have LeBron, Bosh, and Wade. Does it matter?

Q: You’re a sportswriter on the Internet — why haven’t you attacked James Harden yet? Didn’t you get the memo? It’s Attack James Harden Week.

Put it this way — I watched him take terrible 3s, shoot himself out of ice-cold stretches and treat defense like a nuisance for six solid months. You know what my reaction was? I voted for him for first-team All-NBA. He’s the league’s streakiest superstar.

Yeah Bill, some people would call "streakiest" as the "most inconsistent" NBA superstar.

During the 2013-14 season, Harden did the following things …

• Missed 14 of 17 shots against Phoenix (including 0-for-10 from 3), then dropped 34 on Golden State two nights later.

• Missed seven of nine shots against Memphis, only he finished with 27 points because he made 22 of 25 FT’s.

• Went 2-for-9 against OKC, finished with eight points … and exploded for 38, 37 and 38 the next three games, respectively.

• Threw up 41, 10 and six with six steals against Portland just six weeks ago.

• From Game 70 through Game 81, he averaged 28.1 ppg, 8.3 apg, 5.1 rpg, 1.9 spg, 44-37-89% splits and made 10.5 of 11.8 FTA. Repeat: Harden MADE 126 free throws in 12 games.

It sounds like he's just another basketball player who has bad nights. That can't be though, because Bill Simmons has decided that in this week's column he will make James Harden the streakiest superstar in the NBA. It's a real thing that Bill just made up.

we appreciate Harden’s 90 percent (the good stuff) and tolerate the 10 percent (the annoying stuff), but occasionally, the 10 percent completely overpowers the 90 percent.

Stop writing "we." You don't speak for anyone but yourself, despite what your massive ego may tell you. Also, this 90/10 rule basically means that James Harden isn't a perfect basketball player. That's not a news flash. 99% of the league falls in this category of not being perfect.

Q: How much pot should Boston fans smoke during Brooklyn’s playoff games to trick themselves into thinking that Pierce and KG still play for the Celtics?

This is the fifth and last Celtics reference in this column. This is a column about Round 1 of the NBA playoffs where Bill didn't mention two playoff teams at all and Bill's favorite team who didn't make the playoffs is mentioned five times.

Q: What’s the best wager for a 2014 Finals matchup right now just from the standpoint of getting great odds?

You gotta love Heat-Grizzlies at +2100. If Memphis gets by OKC, it’ll have the Clippers next, then probably the winner of Spurs-Blazers. Both winnable, right? The Grizzlies have had “The Look” (trademark: Mike Lombardi for a few weeks now)

Mike Lombardi? I thought he was the GM of the Browns. What happened there? Man, I tell you...being associated with Bill Belichick is so much more fun than having to show you can do a job as well as Bill Belichick isn't it?

they’re tough, they’re playoff-proven, they can get stops, and most important, they know who they are.

Bill's grasp of cliched talking is pretty good. He's excellent at talking in generalities and cliches. It must be his "NBA Countdown" experience rubbing off on him.

Q: It’s a bad sign for Brooks that Russell Westbrook’s brother tweeted during Game 3 that OKC needs a new coach, right?

It’s certainly not a GOOD sign...I love watching Durant and Westbrook, but Westbrook’s overcompetitiveness — the trait you want 99 percent of the time — actually hurts Oklahoma City because he’s saying “I GOT THIS!” way too much.

Apparently Bill's new favorite way to describe an NBA player is to talk about him being an "I GOT THIS" guy. Look for a column in the future expanding on this concept for 1000 words followed by a mailbag for the rest of the column.

It’s starting to feel more and more like Durant and Westbrook might need their own teams. But that’s the best thing about Game 4: They could flip that narrative with one monster game in Memphis. Do they have their own everyone-needs-to-shut-the-eff-up 70-27-15 lurking in them?

Bill's answer is that Westbrook and Durant may each need their own NBA team, but they also may not each need their own NBA team. Talk to him in five years and he will tell you definitively whether they each needed their own NBA team. Then Bill will use his powers of hindsight to tell us why "we" thought Durant/Westbrook could co-exist and why it didn't work or if it turns out Durant/Westbrook did work out Bill will tell us how he said it could work. "We" are wrong when Bill is wrong, Bill is right when Bill is right.

Welcome to this weekend’s most fascinating subplot … well, other than Indiana having basketball’s first-ever collective nervous breakdown.

But the most important burning question from Round 1 of the playoffs is how the Pacers collective nervous breakdown affected the Boston Celtics? Is there a Jermaine O'Neal Corollary involved at all?