3 comments Rollling Stone's Profile of Bill Simmons Intrigues Me

Believe it or not, I try to avoid writing about Bill Simmons. His writing tends to frustrate me so much and the constant nagging feeling that I will end up psycho-analyzing him as opposed to critiquing his writing tends to overwhelm me. His writing is so much about him and what he thinks, it's very difficult to separate the two at times. "Rolling Stone" did a feature on him recently and much of it really intrigued me because of things that Bill said and the little contradictions in his personality that I think has an effect on his writing showed up in the feature. It's well-written and actually is intended to actually be about Bill, which is a nice change of pace since many of Bill's columns are supposed to be about sports and end up being about himself.

In the last few minutes of a belligerent game, full of glaring, taunting, and pushing, the hometown Clippers are in the process of erasing Dallas' comfortable lead, scoring 23 of the last 27 points. To Simmons' dismay, the crowd doesn't seem to appreciate that they're watching one of the best games of the year.

This is why Bill speaks for all sports fans, because no one can appreciate sports like he can. 

The L.A. fans celebrate his feat with a mild golf clap. "He could dunk with his dick and nobody here would stand up to applaud," Simmons mutters.

These are fans of Los Angeles' second favorite sports team. It's not like fans in Los Angeles have a reputation for being rowdy, much less become rowdy for the city's second favorite team. 

Simmons was raised mostly in Boston, where every loss is like a death in the family,

Cliche alert! Other cities take losses hard like Boston does. It's just most other cities don't have major journalists on repeat telling their readers just HOW FUCKING HARD those cities take the losses.

and even at 44, he watches sports with the delight of a kid —

Bill Simmons is the Brett Favre of sports fans.

"We have similarly thorough backgrounds when it comes to movies, TV, sports and other worthless things," says his friend Jimmy Kimmel,

Would any profile of Bill Simmons be complete without a name-drop of Jimmy Kimmel? Did you know that Bill used to write for Kimmel's show? He has Kimmel's phone number too. Just ask him to show you and he will. Really, he has it!

who hired Simmons as a joke writer on Jimmy Kimmel Live! "Bill's very funny, he's married pop culture and sports more than anyone else, and he built his own media empire from a little blog."

He's married pop culture and sports more than anyone else, but this marriage hasn't really progressed very much in the past 5-7 years. If it's a marriage, then this marriage is at the "We know each other's jokes and are bored with each other stage of marriage, so maybe we should have kids to see if that spices things up." Spoiler alert: Grantland has succeeded and "30 for 30" is often brilliant, but Bill's writing did not get spiced up. In fact, Bill's passion for Grantland and his other endeavors only highlights the lazy, recycled manner of his columns and pop culture references. 

Simmons started to accrue a huge following in 1997, when he began blogging on AOL's Boston website in the role of an irritant and smart aleck, under the name Boston Sports Guy. 

All magnates have haters; Simmons makes it easy by frequently getting into feuds.

Bill probably should have just kept that "Boston Sports Guy" name. It was apt then and is still apt now. Also, keep the idea Bill played the role of the "irritant and smart aleck" in mind. Later Bill will say that he doesn't want to hire writers for Grantland who aren't nice on Twitter. It's fine for Bill to be an irritant as long as he has ESPN's backing while doing so, but he doesn't want to hire those other writers who are irritants on Twitter. Interesting set of rules for himself and others. 

On NBA Countdown, Simmons plays a slightly exaggerated version of himself: a comedic troublemaker, "the wild card who doesn't give a shit," he tells me. "I'm part historian, part know-it-all, and part shit-stirrer. I don't hold back – that's the key."

It's okay to stir the pot, just don't start feuds or be a troll. Well, other people shouldn't start feuds or be a troll. If Bill chooses to do both of these things then that's fine. There are different rules for him because he's Bill Simmons. 

The shit has been successfully stirred: Within minutes, Twitter is in flames. "Never hated a sports analyst as much as I hate Bill Simmons," I read as I scroll through his mentions, followed by "I want to punch him in the face," "He is such a douche" and "If Bill Simmons ever got in a car accident, I would be happy." There are compliments, too, but, let's face it, those are boring.

It just shows Bill's popularity that there are negative things being written about him on Twitter. No other media personality ever has anything negative said about him on Twitter. Bill is the only one to experience hatred, this is what makes him so unique. 

Sports Twitter is a mire of stupidity, homophobia, and violent threats.

But hey, it's a great place for Bill to advertise Grantland and these people who are stupid and homophobic are many of the same people who make Bill popular. But yeah, fuck these people.

Sports Twitter also has some intelligent thought about it, but sportswriters tend to prefer to respond to and focus on the idiots on Twitter. For some reason, a lot of people complain about Sports Twitter and then take great pains to highlight those who are stupid on Twitter, as opposed to highlighting those who aren't stupid. 

Simmons uses Twitter almost exclusively to promote and link to Grantland material.

This is seemingly becoming more and more what Bill uses his Grantland columns for. Well, linking Grantland material and linking YouTube videos. 

He also writes fewer sports columns than he used to, partly because

He's out of ideas, he thinks he's better than just being a writer, he has no interest in writing, and he understands that his shelf life is limited and he has recycled material for a few years now? 

TV and movies occupy more of his time.

Plus, Bill seems to be a starfucker at heart and it's really, really hard to try to be a popular media personality when he is associated mainly with writing. Television and movies is where the real potential to starfuck comes into play. 

The Internet gave him a career, an audience, wealth, influence, and fourth-row seats for the Clippers. But lately, Bill Simmons is kind of over the Internet.

Ah, well here's something that isn't a shock. Bill uses the Internet to become who he currently is, but then once his status has been elevated he's too good for the Internet. The Internet is just so mean these days, unlike the old days when Bill used to get recognition by writing entire columns around taking cheap shots at coaches, teams, and general managers. That wasn't mean, because Bill had ESPN behind him when he took cheap shots at Isiah Thomas, teams and players. 

Unlike almost every other site, Grantland doesn't pick fights. "There's a mean-spiritedness on the Internet that we've stayed away from," Simmons told me in his office. "It seems to be getting angrier — especially Twitter, which is full of coyotes, waiting to attack the next victim."

Right...If Bill had any sense of self-awareness he would know that there's a certain mean-spiritedness to some of the things he said about Isiah Thomas over the years. He even had Thomas threatening to fight him. Bill used to beat on Thomas for comedic effect and many times some of his comments felt below the belt. It's fine for Bill to take shots at Isiah in an ESPN column, because how could any column with ESPN behind it be mean-spirited? Once Bill managed to attain fame, suddenly a peace was brokered with Thomas. Bill got what he wanted out of it, he's used Isiah's terribleness for his own ascension and now he's ready to move on. 

Isiah Thomas isn't the only target of Bill's feuds and mean-spiritedness. He got in a feud with WEII-AM's "Big Show" as well. Why was the "Big Show" mad at Bill? Well...

Ordway said that Simmons "has ripped his show in print, but he's always been friendly in person." Ordway: "We're not bullying anybody. We're doing exactly what he's done for years in print where he's ripped everybody. He does the exact same schtick that he's accusing us of." 

It seems Bill used some of that mean-spiritedness on Twitter that he accuses others of to Tweet the following: 

"Hey WEEI: You were wrong, I did a Boston interview today. With your competition. Rather give them ratings over deceitful scumbags like you."

But no really Bill, it is everyone else on Twitter and the Internet that is mean-spirited and you just want Grantland to stay above the fray like you did, right?

His thoughts about vengefulness took on a different meaning only a few hours later, when the shit-stirrer was now in a shitstorm of his own.

Interesting how Bill wants to be a shit-stirrer but gets upset at those who react to the shit-stirring he causes. The Internet and Twitter are so mean to react to Bill's attempts to cause trouble! What a victim! Bill is so cursed! How can it be that Bill intentionally stirs up trouble and then people react negatively to it? How unforeseen!

Two days earlier, the site had published a story, "Dr. V's Magical Putter," about Dr. Essay Anne Vanderbilt, a female physicist who had invented a new, possibly superior golf putter. When writer Caleb Hannan investigated her background, he learned Vanderbilt was a transgender woman. Despite having agreed to her demand that he not write about her life, Hannan told Vanderbilt that he'd discovered the secret she clearly wanted to keep private, and he outed her to an investor.

On that Friday night, Simmons dismissed the furor — just more "mean-spiritedness on the Internet."

This shows how Bill doesn't like to be criticized. Any criticism of his or Grantland's work doesn't have merit and it's just mean-spirited. Because after all, when could Grantland or Bill EVER be wrong about something? 

Oddly, a master of new media was badly misreading what was happening. The next day, he took his daughter to her soccer tournament, and during a break between games, looked online, where the angry reactions had continued. "That's when everything turned," he says, "and I started to think we'd made a serious mistake.

Notice the use of Bill's typical "we" made a mistake. The editor-in-chief of Grantland isn't going to say "he" made a mistake, because admitting a mistake would go against Bill's ego believing himself to be perfect and without fault, but "we" made a mistake. Bill loves to use the proverbial "we" whenever he is wrong about something, even when he's the editor-in-chief of Grantland who is glad to soak up any compliments he may receive for the success of the site, but says "we" made a mistake when something goes wrong.

The story's misjudgment was not the result of malice. The Grantland staff is more diverse, in gender and race, than most publications ("God forbid we ever get credit for that," he grumbles),

What an ass. Oh sure, a Grantland article led to a person committing suicide due to subject of the article being outed as transgender, but Bill wants this to be ignored in favor of Grantland's diversity. 

"Sure, this article led to a person killing themselves, but isn't this a small price to pay for diversity at Grantland?" 

But Simmons also didn't fully understand why people despised the article. "Crazy" and "hysterical" responses on Twitter had made him "embarrassed for mankind,"

Bill is your typical stereotypical only child. He doesn't like being told he is wrong, so he naturally refuses to initially admit he is wrong, and then when confronted with being wrong he gets defensive. These are the hallmarks of a person who grew up rarely being told he/she was wrong so he/she doesn't know how to handle this type of rejection. Of course, it's embarrassing for mankind there is a negative reaction to a Grantland column that resulted in a suicide. It's mankind's fault, not the editor-in-chief's fault. 

and he didn't agree with me that Grantland never should have mentioned the fact that Vanderbilt was a transgender woman.

It was agreed upon before the article was written that Dr. V's private life would not be a part of the article. If this agreement was in fact real, then Bill is absolutely, unequivocally wrong that Vanderbilt being a transgender woman should have been mentioned in the column. 

Like a lot of people, especially people in the sports world, he's amiss in issues of gender and sexuality; a few weeks later, during a podcast in which he discussed Michael Sam, a college football player who came out in February, Simmons used the offensive phrase "sexual preference" – not out of hostility towards Sam, but out of ignorance. 

I don't think "sexual preference" is derogatory if used in the correct fashion. I have a sexual preference for women. It's who I prefer. This doesn't indicate anything bad or that I have/don't have a choice in this preference. It simply indicates what I prefer. I don't see the ignorance here to be honest. Perhaps I'm too ignorant to see the ignorance. 

Simmons wrote a lengthy apology for the "Dr. V" story, which Grantland posted the next Monday. The article, he admitted, lacked empathy for Vanderbilt, and should not have outed her posthumously. His apology was thorough and almost self-flagellating, but was also mitigated by his defensiveness, which ESPN Executive Vice President and Executive Editor John A. Walsh told me he found "unfortunate."

Bill does not want to be wrong. It's not something I made up because I'm bored. It's why he uses the term "we" when talking about himself being wrong about an issue. Of course ESPN isn't going to piss off their golden goose, so "unfortunate" is as far as they will go in publicly discussing Bill's response to the Dr. V article and controversy (started by those "crazy" and "hysterical" people who put a black mark on mankind...you know, those people who don't like it when an editor-in-chief gets defensive rather than just accepting he was wrong). 

And ESPN ombudsman Robert Lipsyte, an accomplished 76-year old writer, added his own column, in which he called the article "inexcusable" in its "unawareness and arrogance." He described Simmons as "a talented, overextended 44 year old" with "considerable vision and celebrity." Lipsyte did not intend "celebrity" as a compliment.

Bill would never hire Lipsyte for Grantland because he is attempting to start a feud with Bill by criticizing him. Also, Bill chases this celebrity so it's not a compliment nor is it inaccurate. 

He won't say whether or not he has a bookie in L.A., which means he likely does.

He's so cool. He has a bookie, he drinks and smokes pot.

And if he offers you a bet, you should probably take it — last football season, he won only 108 out of 256 picks against the spread in his column. "It was kind of a bummer," he says, though he points out that in 2006, he had his wife Kari make her own football picks in his column. "And she beat me. So if I had credibility after that gimmick, it was an accident."

Here's the issue though. I get that Bill says he believes himself to have no credibility, but he does not really believe this. He spends inordinate amount of his columns writing rules for gambling and setting up corollaries and other guidelines on how a person should gamble. For someone who doesn't think he is good at gambling he sure has a lot of gambling advice he likes to dispense to others. It's almost like he doesn't believe that he believes he is not good at gambling. It's the fake humble thing he tends to do. 

Simmons is credited as an Internet visionary, but he went into new media only because old media rejected him. "Boston," he says, "is where I failed."

And you aren't going to believe this, but Bill doesn't like going back to where he failed and he acted like a child by taking shots at Boston writers early in his career. Yes, the same Bill Simmons that is embarrassed by mankind and talks about a meanness on the Internet used to spend his early career taking shots at Boston writers because he wanted to be them. Again, the same meanness that is a bad thing today is what drove Bill Simmons to start a career writing online. 

He began his career as a lackey at the Boston Herald, the lesser of the city's two daily papers, "organizing Chinese-food orders" and covering high school teams. He stood outside the Herald building on the Mass Turnpike, smoking cigarettes and "wondering what the fuck I was gonna do with my life."

These are the types of things a lower-level newspaper employee does to pay his dues and eventually get a shot to write more. But Bill Simmons isn't happy being lower-level because he's Bill Simmons and through his mere existence he doesn't deserve to be anyone's lackey. 

TV anchors and newspaper columnists keep their jobs for decades, and at the Herald, "mediocre writers were blocking my way," Simmons later wrote. 

What mean-spiritedness Bill displays. 

"I didn't do myself any favors," he adds now. "I was probably too arrogant, and could barely hide my disdain for some of the writers."

But since it turned out okay for him, this wasn't him being an asshole like those people on the Internet today who are arrogant and barely hide their disdain for a writer's work. It's totally different because it's Bill Simmons who has disdain, which makes it perfectly fine. 

He considered going into commercial real estate with his stepdad before he came across a new website, AOL, where even a Herald reject could write.
He wrote with a fan's dismay and delight, rejecting the idea of being objective (a Boston partisan, he openly despises the L.A. Lakers and any team from New York), and attacking local sportswriters by name.

I'm sorry, what was that again? 

and attacking local sportswriters by name.

I must have read that wrong because that seems mean-spirited. Let me read it again. 

and attacking local sportswriters by name.

In the mid-90's Bill Simmons was attacking local sportswriters by name, while in 2014 he is railing against the following: 

"There's a mean-spiritedness on the Internet that we've stayed away from," Simmons told me in his office. "It seems to be getting angrier — especially Twitter, which is full of coyotes, waiting to attack the next victim." One false move, he added, and you find yourself in "a 24-hour shitstorm."

just more "mean-spiritedness on the Internet."

"Crazy" and "hysterical" responses on Twitter had made him "embarrassed for mankind,"

So when Bill started out taking shots at local sportswriters, after working side-by-side with some of these writers by the way, it was perfectly fine. No problem there. It's just Bill giving his opinion and it's the correct opinion because it's the opinion of Bill Simmons. But when others on the Internet give their opinion and get angry at something written on Grantland Bill thinks these people are "coyotes" and "mean-spirited." But of course. What's good for Bill isn't good for everyone else. He now is the guy getting attacked and all of a sudden being attacked gives Bill a sad face, so attacking sportswriters is no longer okay. 

In 2000, when ESPN launched Page 2, a site that mixed sports, pop culture and humor, Simmons waited for his phone to ring. "That was probably the lowest I sunk, when ESPN didn't hire me for Page 2," he says. He was in his early thirties, still borrowing money from his parents. A few months after the launch, he wrote a column mocking ESPN's annual awards show, and his taunts got noticed.

Yes, Bill got noticed by being mean-spirited and being angry about ESPN's annual awards show. He was just another Internet writer being mean and that's how he got noticed. Now that Bill has made it, he would hate the guy he was in early thirties for doing this, right? 

If there's a moral, it's this: Bite the hand you cannot kiss. 

Or the moral could be that you need to be a really good writer, which Bill was at the time. Back during the time when he was self-aware enough to realize he is the angry person on the Internet that currently scolds. 

Deadspin is to mocking Simmons what Michael Jordan is to basketball, so I asked Tommy Craggs, the site's editor, to summarize the case against him. Craggs denounced Simmons' "chuckling, incurious, cleverest-guy-standing-around-the-Phi-Delt-keg writing voice," and dismissed him as "nothing more than a dispenser of dull, honkified conventional wisdom about sports." He also said Simmons had been smart in not hiring Bill-Jr. clones at Grantland, adding that a site full of Simmons-ish prose "would suck."

I'm getting ready to link a column from Deadspin where Craggs gives his entire unedited version of how he described Simmons. It has a much different tone than these quotes. 

What is it with these guys? They're nearly as bad as Sports Twitter. Charles Pierce of Esquire wrote a snarlish review of Simmons' Book of Basketball (on Deadspin, of course), mocking his frequent digressions into gambling, movies, his friends, and strip clubs, and concluding with the words, "Get the fuck over yourself." This lead to an angry exchange of emails and posts, during which Pierce called Simmons a "mendacious, whiny little thin-skinned bag of breeze."

I'm sure this wasn't mean-spirited though.

Several months later, Simmons hired Pierce as a staff writer, so presumably, all has been forgiven.

In the Deadspin article of outtakes from this interview, Bill will say he won't hire writers who beef with other writers on Twitter. This hire of Charles Pierce seems to prove this wrong. Maybe the difference is Simmons-Pierce didn't beef on Twitter. I'm not sure I see the difference in beefing in email form or over Twitter. Again, another little Simmons contradiction between his expectations for others and his personal actions. 

"ESPN was idiotic," says Simmons, who can match any athlete for self-confidence. "They fucked with my column for the first year, taking out jokes, and I was pissed off. They were rebuilding their site around me, but they were paying me nothing. So I had a meltdown: I didn't turn in a column. I was like, 'Attica! Attica!' " He laughs.

Bill is very, very lucky ESPN saw his talent and didn't tell him to hit the road. ESPN gave Bill a forum to become popular and this temper tantrums could easily lead to "What happened to the Boston Sports Guy?" articles in present time. 

It wasn't Simmons' last fight with his bosses. They've suspended him from Twitter twice for tweets: for referring to Boston sports-radio hosts who worked for an ESPN affiliate as "deceitful scumbags," and also for saying an interview that aired on ESPN was "awful and embarrassing."

But again, Bill wasn't angry about this. He didn't do this in anger or to be mean. He works for ESPN so how could he be compared to a random person on the Internet/Twitter who would call Bill a "deceitful scumbag" or say he's "awful and embarrassing." It's totally different when Bill does it because he is famous and the random person on the Internet/Twitter is not. There are things that it is okay for Bill Simmons to do, while he is proud to look down on others for doing those same things.

Convincing the network to do 30 For 30 required "a year of arm-twisting," he says. When it was a success, and his basketball book had been a big hit, his contract was up for renewal. "I had a little leverage." He told ESPN that he wanted his own site, or he'd leave and do it elsewhere.

"When we were launching, we didn't realize technology advances would help us so much." GIFs, Instapaper, wi-fi, embeddable links — all foster the ease of promoting a digital magazine. "The iPad has been a godsend — it's probably the greatest thing that's' happened to Grantland. Nobody knew the fucking iPad was coming. I didn't. We hit at the right time."

And the part that Bill won't acknowledge, being backed by ESPN helped so much too. Having Grantland cross-promoted across multiple ESPN forums and media, allowing Bill the money and name to hire big name writers so these writers feel comfortable a move from CNNSI.com to Grantland isn't a lateral move, and just overall helping Grantland get started so it gains momentum and works. That's partly because ESPN is behind him, though I'm sure Bill won't acknowledge this. 

Let's be a little honest here. Even the success of Bill's books are partly attributed to his affiliation with ESPN. I give Bill a lot of credit, he did a hell of a job building his brand, but his first book was a collection of his ESPN columns and his second book benefited from Bill's presence on Page 2 and ESPN.com. Bill of course had something to do with it, but I don't think Bill ever gives ESPN enough credit for his successes. But why would he? Having the largest sports media site behind him couldn't have been an advantage for the success of his (admittedly great) ideas, could it? He's fortunate he didn't bite the hand that fed him too hard early in his career.

Now that he oversees an empire, Simmons says he doesn't care as much about Boston teams. "It's not life-or-death anymore," he says with a shrug.

And it shows. It shows in the articles Bill writes. He's just like the everyday fan, if that everyday fan became wealthy, rejected the method on which he became wealthy, forgot where he came from and then dismissed those things he once liked and kept him grounded for those things which make him a lot of money and fame. For Bill, this is probably a win. He's not the guy who lives and dies by his teams, though this does call into question the assertion early in this article that "every game is life or death in Boston." It seems it's life or death for Bill until it becomes about money and fame. 

But that might not be true. His daughter loves L.A.'s hockey team, the Kings, so he took her to see them play his team, the Bruins. "Boston won, and I taunted her on the way home. She started crying. She was, like, six years old."

Wow, what a big man. Hopefully Bill does make $5 million per year so he can pay for his daughter's therapy when she gets older. But hey, taunting a six year old until she cries, that's pretty fucking manly. 

You know what I'm going to ask...is taunting a six year old "crazy" or "mean-spirited"? 

A few years later, they went to another Kings-Bruins game, and this time her team won. "She was yelling and high-fiving everyone," Simmons says, "and she taunted me."

Bill probably smacked her. That'll learn her to taunt the great Bill Simmons!

So here is the Deadspin article on the 18 things left out of this Bill Simmons profile. 

I ate sushi with Bill in L.A., watched him tape podcasts in New York, talked to him on the phone, and emailed with him, and when it was over, I had a bunch of quotes that didn't fit into my Rolling Stone profile, but would, I thought, interest Simmonsologists,

I have no idea where the word "Simmonsologists" comes from, but if you search my archive I first used the term in 2008 as a tag on a Bill Simmons post. Carry on...

1) There will probably be another edition of The Book of Basketball
 

"I've got to re-do the pyramid to figure out where LeBron James is. I think I'd put him sixth, all time. Michael Jordan, Bill Russell, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, and then LeBron. Kevin Durant might be in the top 50 or 60 now. Dirk Nowitzki moved into the top 20. Maybe I'll charge people half-price, or you can get a discount if you bring back your copy of the old book." 

Right, I bet this will happen. Sure. I'm sure Bill's publisher will be perfectly happy with this happening. 

4) David Stern hates him.
 

"David Stern hates me. I wrote some negative stuff about him during the last lockout, and I think he took it personally. I sat next to him at a documentary screening once. He said to his wife, 'This is Bill Simmons.' There was a little contempt in his voice. She shook my hand like I had just pooped in it."

I'm sure it's nothing a little Gus Johnson brokering a handshake or two won't fix. 

5) If you want a job at Grantland, stop being a jerk on Twitter.
 

"We have a kind of 'no dicks' policy. We try to hire decent people, not people who are assholes or cause trouble.

Hmmm...would 1997 Bill Simmons get hired by Grantland? It doesn't sound like it. Also, Bill has been suspended by ESPN for being a jerk on Twitter. So it's another case of "Do as I say, not as I do" from Bill...which of course fine since he is the editor-in-chief of Grantland, but it also doesn't make me a jerk or mean-spirited for pointing this contradiction out. 

8) He jinxed the Pats' 2008 Super Bowl victory.
 

"When there were two minutes left in the game, my dad and I took a picture with the scoreboard behind us, like, 'Hey, we're going to go 19-0!' And I do feel like that might have singlehandedly swung the game. People don't mention that. They mention the [David] Tyree catch, but they don't mention that picture, or God going, 'Really? You're taking a picture? Alright, watch me change the outcome of this game.' The larger point is, every Pats fan felt that way. Karma killed us." 

If Bill is being serious about this then his self-absorption has reached an all-time new high. "People don't mention that Bill singlehandedly swung the game." This has to be Bill being not serious, though it is hard to tell since Bill tends to be pretty fucking self-absorbed at times. He may really think the fact he and his dad took a picture with the scoreboard behind them changed the outcome of the game. 

12) He might leave ESPN.
 

The NBA's current TV deals with ABC/ESPN and TNT run through the 2015-2016 season, and Fox Sports and even NBC are expected to bid aggressively for subsequent rights. "My contract expires next year. If ESPN doesn't have the broadcast rights to the NBA, it will make me re-evaulate what I should do next. I want to work for whoever has the NBA."

I see Bill is already renegotiating his next contract with ESPN by pretending he would leave. Maybe he would, who knows? I've heard this stuff before though and it didn't happen. 

13) He's made peace with nearly everyone he's antagonized.
 

"Doc Rivers and I talked on the phone. Isiah Thomas and I did a handshake hug. I think the guy who's maddest at me now is Rick Barry. I said in my book that he was unlikeable. He was! He was the most loathed guy in the league, probably of all time.

I'm still having trouble reconciling Bill's anger towards Internet comments and his suggestion he only hires "nice guys" on Twitter for Grantland with the fact he's antagonized sports figures in print and on Twitter. 

14) ESPN is his other spouse.
 

"I had a weird epiphany about ESPN last Christmas. Sometimes my wife gets mad because I watch football all day—which is funny, since me watching sports pays for everything.

Even if true, it's not a thing to say. 

ESPN is a complicated place. Many people have used pieces of the company to their advantage. You can do a radio show and go home, or you can do a radio show, then badger the website until they let you write for them. I've probably done it the best, and I don't mean that as a compliment to myself."

By Bill saying, "I don't mean that as a compliment to myself" I think Bill entirely means this as a compliment to himself. Really, I don't know another way this can be taken. 

16) Joe Montana > Tom Brady.
 

"The rules were different when he played. Guys could dive at his knees, hit him in the head, crush his receivers over the middle. If Brady wins a fourth Super Bowl, then I'd say Brady."

This is a good example of Simmons logic. He attributes the difference in Brady and Montana to the rules changes, then says if Brady wins EXACTLY AS MANY SUPER BOWLS AS MONTANA WON, then Brady was the better quarterback. So basically, Montana is the better quarterback because he's won more Super Bowls. But yeah, rule changes and all...that's the reason. Sure. 

Anyway, read the Bill Simmons piece at "Rolling Stone." It's interesting for no other reason than to hear Bill go from the blogger who criticizes sportswriters using his opinion of that sportswriter's work to the multi-media mogel who thinks anyone who criticizes sportswriters using their opinion of that sportswriter's work is mean-spirited and that's why he essentially ignores criticism of work he or Grantland has done.

7 comments Gregg Easterbrook Continues to Hold Logic Hostage by Writing Another TMQ; Still Doesn't Understand How Numbers Work

Gregg Easterbrook still hates numbers that are calculated to the tenth and hundredth of a unit of time. I expected we would read Gregg's yearly complaints about absurd precision earlier than May. Since Gregg really has no good ideas for his weekly TMQ, he mainly just rotates the same discussions every year in talking about concussions and how offense is taking over the sport of football until he decides in November the defenses will start catching up. He is beholden to repeating the same column ideas every year. At some points during the year there will be a column about "unwanted" and "undrafted" players, there will be a column criticizing the over-precision of numbers (rounding to the hundredth of a second is too precise for Gregg...he's the absolute worst), and in every column there is a discussion on how television shows aren't realistic. Gregg lives in this world where fictional television shows need to be realistic, tenths of a second are too precise, and every single thing that happened in the NFL over the last week is now a long-term trend until he decides it's not a long-term trend so just forget what he said earlier, okay?

So Gregg is back and he is mocking the mock drafts. Well, he's not really "mocking" them seeing as nothing Gregg writes is clever or funny. He's just sort of using the type of humor he and his other white, upper-class haughty academic friends would think is funny to discuss the NFL Draft.

Suppose you were basing your draft strategy on results of recent Super Bowls. Here's what you would want:

If you are a GM who bases your draft strategy entirely on the results of recent Super Bowls then you are also going to be more likely watching future NFL Drafts in the comfort of your own home and not in a team's strategy room.

Short quarterbacks.

The height of the past ten Super Bowl winning quarterbacks: 5'11, 6'0", 6'2", 6'4", 6'6", 6'4", 6'5", 6'5".

Never change your lack of research and total reliance on the immediacy of events to predict a long-term change, Gregg. It makes you as terrible as you are.

Tall defensive backs.

Lots of defensive ends.

Fine, let's talk about the last five Super Bowl champs. Here are the heights of the top-5 defensive backs on these teams and the number of defensive ends on the roster.

Seahawks: 6'3", 6'1", 6'3", 5'10", 6'0" and five defensive ends.

Ravens: 6'0", 6'1", 5"11, 6'2", 6'1" and three (and a half...Ngata/Hall moved around) defensive ends.

Giants: 6'0", 6'0", 6"0, 6'0", and 6'2" and five defensive ends.

Packers: 5'11", 5'11", 5'11", 6'1", 5'11" and three (and a half...Pickett moved around) defensive ends.

Saints: 5'11", 6'1", 5'11", 6'2", 5'11" and four defensive ends.

It depends partially on what your definition of "lots" of defensive ends would be, but I wouldn't consider any of the teams other than Seattle and the Giants to have lots of defensive ends. The Seahawks also seem to have the tallest corners of any other Super Bowl bowl-winning team in the past five years. Most of the other Super Bowl champs have corners who were between 5'11"-6'1", so yet again Gregg is taking an event that happened recently and trying to turn it into a long-term league-wide trend. He's ridiculously terrible and what he writes is often a joke. 

Two of the past five Super Bowls have been won by quarterbacks who are "too short" -- Drew Brees and Russell Wilson. Throw in Delaware alum Joe Flacco, and three of the past five quarterbacks who stood in a confetti shower at season's end did not meet the draftnik ideal of magnificent physical specimen from a football-factory program.

I'm LOL'ing like fucking mad right now. Joe Flacco, the guy who is 6'6" and 245 pounds didn't meet the draftniks ideal of a magnificent physical specimen from a football-factory? Flacco IS the physical specimen that NFL teams look for in the draft and he was drafted in the first round of the 2008 draft. FIRST ROUND, that's where he was drafted. Gregg is just absolutely full of shit. It's astonishing to me that ESPN allows him to get away with writing absolute lies in his TMQ. That's what any claim Flacco doesn't fit the physical ideal NFL teams want, an absolute, 100% lie.

Also, Russell Wilson graduated from Wisconsin and Drew Brees went to Purdue. I won't argue Purdue is a football-factory, but Wisconsin puts quite a few players into the NFL. More lies and deception.

But while your quarterback can be short, your defensive backs should be tall. Seattle's memorable defensive season was partly the work of cornerback Richard Sherman and safety Kam Chancellor, both 6-foot-3. Don't forget cornerback Byron Maxwell, at 6-1. Scouts used to think tall guys can't change direction quickly enough to play the secondary. Apparently they can.

This is the result of one team winning the Super Bowl. I'd love to hear Gregg explain how the Packers won the Super Bowl with one member of the starting secondary over 6-feet tall. I guess trends that don't go the direction Gregg wants them to get ignored by him.

Seattle's 2013 defensive performance was so spectacular -- at the Super Bowl, the No. 1 defense blew the No. 1 offense off the field -- that TMQ predicted an NFL revival of drafting for defense.

It will be a revival of drafting for defense and a revival of defense in the NFL until Gregg's Week 2 column about how the NFL has runaway offenses yet again and can these offenses ever be stopped? This is followed by the offenses slowing down in November and Gregg writing that he knew this would happen.

We'll see. Remember, this column's motto is "All Predictions Wrong Or Your Money Back."

What a coward. What an absolute coward. Gregg is going to be perfectly willing to talk about how right he was if there is a revival in defense in the NFL, but on the off-chance he is wrong he basically writes, "Oh, well I don't know anything anyway," like he's not supposed to be accountable for the predictions he makes that aren't correct. Why should Gregg be accountable for what he writes? It's all in good fun when Gregg is wrong, but he'll tell us how he was one of the first people to mention a defensive revival if he turns out to be correct.

Quality defensive ends are as difficult to find in the draft as quality athletes at any other position. But if you have three defensive ends who can bring it, field them all at once.

"If you find good football players, put them on the field!"

You learn so many things reading TMQ, even if some of these things are obvious or outright lies.

In other football news, everyone's got a mock draft: Although TMQ annually mocks the mock drafts. Below is my 15th mock of mock drafts, as the column's 15th season approaches.

Guaranteed to be less clever and more annoying every single year.

In the run-up to the draft, everyone is obsessing about hundredths-of-a-second differences. See below for TMQ's annual lampoon of absurd precision.

Oh, "everyone" is obsessed about hundredths-of-a-second differences? I didn't know "everyone" was obsessed with this, but I bet I would be more persuaded if Gregg could provide a few links showing this obsession "everyone" has. Gregg really enjoys trying to mislead his readers. He makes a statement but can't provide one link to show it's truthfulness.

1. Houston Texans: Idina Menzel, coloratura soprano. The Texans intend to select Johnny Manziel, but accidentally write Menzel's similar name on card.

These are the type of things Gregg believes to be hilarious and clever.

2. St. Louis Rams (from Washington): John Lofting, inventor of draft beer. St. Louis drafts first or second for the fourth time in eight years. If there were draft choice standings, the Rams would be awesome.

This is another example of Gregg absolutely misleading his readers. It's another lie and shows just how little research Gregg puts into this column, even though the fact this pick is from Washington is in parenthesis. This is astounding. I'm sure Gregg will claim he is just trying to be funny, but he's not. The only reason the Rams have that pick is because that is the Redskins first round pick. The Rams are making their pick at #13.

5. Oakland Raiders: Lacy T., lead plaintiff in the Raiderettes' lawsuit against the team. As someone who has been pounding the table for years about fair pay for cheerleaders -- see a 2009 item headlined "Cheerleader Exploitation" -- Tuesday Morning Quarterback has this to say about the wave of cheerleaders' lawsuits: Go! Fight! Win!

The idea that Gregg Easterbrook is against cheerleader exploitation is hilarious. Gregg Easterbrook puts pictures of cheerleaders in his column and even has a rule that says the less clothing the cheerleaders wear the better the team they cheer for will perform. Gregg is against cheerleader exploitation, but he's perfectly fine exploiting their looks slightly in TMQ.

Fans of HIMYM raged against the series finale, but fans always dislike finales -- "Seinfeld," "The Sopranos," etc. -- because they don't want the show's artificial universe to vanish. 

Again, this is an assumption Gregg shouldn't make. Fans love the ending of shows that end in a way they like for the show to end or makes sense. "Breaking Bad" and "The Shield" are two good examples.

TMQ viewed the HIMYM closing scene as a tragic ending. If Robin always was The One, then she and Ted will have each other as consolation in aging, but were denied the young lustful years that are the sweetest part of a long-term romantic partnership.

Of course Gregg would view the story from a completely nonsensical direction. Ted and Robin did date (twice!) while they were young and lustful. So I'm not sure Gregg understands what's talking about. Most fans hated the end of the show because the entire last season was dedicated to Ted meeting the mother and then she is killed off-screen in the last 3 minutes of the finale so that Ted could be with Robin, which is the direction the writers SWORE they would not go with the story. It's a bait-and-switch. The writers made you care about the mother, created the entire last season around the very specific spot and time Ted would meet her, and then killed her off. It was annoying.

In the Cruise movie, intelligent insects invade Earth. Maybe they seek revenge for mosquito spraying. The big-budget sci-fi flicks "Ender's Game" and "Starship Troopers" also featured insectoid civilians bent on destroying our planet. In both films, when Earth's counterattack reaches the insects' home worlds, no machines or technology are found. The intelligent spiders of "Starship Troopers" were able to teleport an asteroid across interstellar distance, a technological feat that defies imagination. Yet their home world had no factories, vehicles, buildings or computers; their soldiers lacked guns.

So in a movie where intelligent giant spiders were killing humans, Gregg has a problem with the fact these spiders could teleport an asteroid and didn't have any weapons or factories? Intelligent giant spiders are okay, but Gregg draws the "this lacks realism" line at these spiders not having RPG's and their inability to build a beer factory.

15. Pittsburgh Steelers: Kevin Canevari, guard, Mercer University men's basketball. The Steelers are too reserved, too uptight. Canevari could teach them better touchdown dances.

Canevari did a lot of dancing for a guy who played six minutes, missed his only shot of the game and let his more talented teammates do all the hard work. I guess when you average nine minutes per game as a senior you have a lot of time to work on your dancing while your teammates work hard enough to deservedly win an NCAA Tournament game.

21. Green Bay Packers: Pharrell Williams, world's coolest person. The Packers seem a little uptight, too. The world's coolest person is the solution.

I enjoy how Pharrell has been producing, singing and writing music for almost two decades, but now he's appealed to people like Gregg Easterbrook by having a cross-over hit that appeared in an animated movie.

Judged events are always subjective -- was Kim's artistic perfection or Sotnikova's athletic power more impressive? There can be no answer to that question. Sotnikova sure was ballin'.

See? When Gregg finds Pharrell Williams' music these are the type of things that happen, he uses the word "ballin'" in a sentence. Pharrell has the eye of the middle-aged white people now. Up next, a duet with Tony Bennett.

25. San Diego Chargers: Swimsuit Barbie. She'd fit right in on the city's beaches. After swimsuit Barbie "posed" for the annual Sports Illustrated cheesecake number, the toy company ran a full-page ad in The New York Times declaring girls should "celebrate who they are," which means feeling "free to launch a career in a swimsuit, lead a company while gorgeous or wear pink to an interview at MIT." TMQ yields to no one in his enthusiasm for attractive women in scanty attire,

"TMQ yields to no one in his enthusiasm for attractive women in scanty attire" but of course he is outraged that NFL teams exploit cheerleaders and has them wear scanty attire in the process of exploiting them. It's so different and not at all a contradiction on Gregg's part. See, he thinks NFL cheerleaders shouldn't be exploited, but he is perfectly fine with ogling the cheerleaders while they are being exploited.

26. Cleveland Browns (from Indianapolis): Ariel, mermaid who hoards. When the woeful Browns traded away Trent Richardson, and traded 2013 draft picks to bank choices for this year, they seemed engaged in NBA-style tanking. But with the 2014 draft shaping up as one of the deepest ever, Cleveland's choice-hoarding strategy suddenly seems a masterstroke. The Browns go twice in the first, third and fourth rounds -- given the quality of the draft, it's a chance for a talent makeover.

It's almost like Gregg's preconceived notions don't always turn out to be true. Who could have ever thought this to occur? Bill Simmons would say, "We" were wrong about the Browns tanking. At the time of the trade I believe I told Gregg the Browns weren't tanking, but simply taking advantage of the Colts trading a 1st round pick for a running back who wasn't part of the team's long-term plans.

31. Denver Broncos: Kevin Durant, 6-9 "small" forward, Oklahoma City. The Broncos set football's regular-season scoring record, then were crushed in the Super Bowl. Only one of the 10 highest-scoring NFL teams has won the Super Bowl the same season. Over in the NBA, of the 67 regular-season individual scoring champions, only 11 went on to win the title.

There is a big difference in a team not winning the Super Bowl as the highest scoring team in the NFL and an individual player's team not winning the NBA Title after that player led the NBA in scoring. Two totally different things. The Super Bowl/NBA Title is a team achievement, while a team leading the NFL in scoring is a team achievement, and a specific player leading the NBA is scoring is an individual achievement.

It's a bad comparison. It's like saying of the NBA players who led the league in rebounding in the last 20 years, only one of those players has been on a championship team. The outstanding ability of one player in one statistical category on an entire team shouldn't mean that team is expected to win a title due to this one outstanding ability.

Unified Field Theory of Creep: Reader Cody Herche of New York City reports U.S. News & World Report published its 2015 ranking of law schools on March 11, 2014.

But it's the school year that ends in 2015, so this isn't necessarily incorrect or "creep." You know what? Forget it.

"Crisis" begins by having kids from an exclusive prep school in the nation's capital board a bus for a field trip to New York City. Soon the bus heads down a lonely one-lane blacktop in a remote area, where kidnappers attack. A Secret Service good guy accompanies the field trip because the president's son is aboard the bus. The Secret Service guy protecting the president's son never says, "Hey, why are we heading down a lonely one-lane blacktop in a remote area instead of using I-95?"

It's a television show. It's fictional. Watching a television show expecting reality reflects more on you than the reality of the program you are watching.

In a "Blacklist" episode, a bad guy is said to be in "Dorchester, Massachusetts," which producers seem to think is a town; it's a neighborhood of Boston. The good guys race to their black SUV, peel out with the Capitol in the background; make a quick turn and are on the Williamsburg Bridge in New York City; moments later they are in Boston. In another "Blacklist" scene, the crawl says "Fairfax, Virginia"; viewers see an abandoned warehouse in a gritty industrial district. Fairfax, Virginia, is actually a high-income bedroom suburb.

There are NO abandoned warehouses in Fairfax, Virginia. Much like Gregg Easterbrook himself, it seems "Blacklist" plays fast and loose with facts. That's probably why Gregg is so good at recognizing when a television show is misleading viewers, because Gregg misleads and lies to his readers all the time in TMQ.

When one draft prospect is said to run a 4.58 and another a 4.59, draftniks have something to talk about -- though only in track and swimming might hundredths of seconds merit attention. Americans love absurd precision.

It's not absurd precision when a number is rounded to the nearest tenth or hundredth of a decimal. It's basic use of numbers to convey information. There's absolutely no reason to call rounding a number to the hundredth of a decimal "absurd precision."

In the latest Star Trek movie, Spock says an idea has "a 91.6 percent chance of success," which is supposed to make him sound smart -- actually it makes him sound like a crackpot.

No, it makes him sound like the kind of person who understands the difference in a 91% and 92% chance of success.

Here are amusing examples of absurd precision since last year's pre-draft item on the topic:

New Jersey raised its capital-gains tax to 8.97 percent. It's certainly not 9 percent!

It certainly isn't, dipshit! Because if I have capital gains in the amount of $1 million then the difference in what I would be taxed at 8.97% and 9% is $300. Maybe $300 doesn't mean much to Gregg Easterbrook, but I know most people could find a use for saving $300 on a capital gains tax.

Memphis was playing George Washington in the men's basketball tournament. Trailing by three, G.W. launched a buzzer-beater; the ball caromed out of bounds and the horn sounded, ending the contest. Wait -- officials are huddling with the monitors. "I'm guessing they put 0.6 seconds, maybe even 0.7 seconds back on the clock," broadcaster Reggie Miller said. Miller can sense tenths of seconds!

How infuriating. No, Reggie Miller can not sense tenths of a second. He has access to instant replay which slows down when the ball went out of bounds. Reggie Miller has eyes and the ability to use them to see when the ball went out of bounds.

Officials told the timekeeper to put 0.4 seconds back on the clock. Officials can sense fifths of seconds!

I can sense when Gregg Easterbrook is being a haughty, willfully ignorant moron. The officials, much like Reggie Miller, have access to instant replay which shows exactly when the ball went out of bounds. They are then able to use their brain (a tool Gregg doesn't use when writing TMQ) to tell the timekeeper how much time to put on the clock. The officials don't have to "sense" anything when they can just look at the replay.

Prince George's County, Maryland, a suburb of Washington, reported it was hiring more firefighters so that "response times would improve by 12 seconds."

12 seconds is a big fucking deal when it comes to firefighters responding to the scene of a fire. I hope Gregg's house catches fire and he's trapped in there and the fire department responds 12 seconds slower than usual, just to see how that feels. All of a sudden, absurd precision isn't so silly anymore is it? I don't want Gregg to be hurt in a fire in this hypothetical situation, but in terms of a fire lasting 12 more seconds, this is a big deal. But whatever, we'll let Gregg think a fire department responding to a fire 12 seconds slower isn't a big deal.

ESPN Insider projected that the Phoenix Suns would win "17.2" games. The actual was 48 -- that's 30.8 more victories!

This number was projected after thousands of simulations, so that's why it is rounded to the tenth of a decimal. It makes sense to someone who has any type of grasp on statistics.

Exactly 101,157 signatures were required to certify a recall vote on San Diego's mayor.

This isn't absurd precision, this is the exact amount of signatures needed according to the recall process in order to get the required 15% of the registered voters in the City of San Diego. It's the number required to recall the mayor, not an absurdly precise number pulled out of thin air.

Sports Illustrated said Peyton Manning releases a pass in "2.51 seconds." During the Indianapolis-Kansas City playoff game, an NBC crawl said Andrew Luck was averaging "2.27 seconds" per release. Pro Football Focus said Robert Griffin III takes "2.66 seconds" to throw a pass.

In football, the difference in a defensive end getting to the quarterback three-tenths of a second late or early is the difference in a touchdown pass, an interception, or a sack. I recognize Gregg doesn't seem to understand these in-depth facts about the NFL (even though he writes a weekly column during the NFL season about the NFL), but how quickly a quarterback releases the ball can be semi-important.

A Swedish research agency advised the United States to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by "29.1 percent."

Considering the output of greenhouse gases per year is 44 billion tons, I think the difference in the United States cutting emissions by 29% rather than 29.1% is rather significant.

Next Week: TMQ's annual grade-inflation draft grades -- everybody is above average.

Just be sure to round the draft grade to the nearest whole number or else Gregg throws a hissy-fit about absurd precision. Because after all, firefighters getting to a fire 12 seconds later than they otherwise could isn't a big deal, right? 

14 comments 2014 NFL Mock Draft

If you ever want a good laugh, then go back and look at my 2013 NFL mock draft from last year. It's hilarious in how stupid I was in making my draft picks. That's probably my worst mock ever. Since I've convinced you to read this year's mock draft by pointing out how clueless I am, how about reading this year's 2014 NFL mock draft? So stick around and read it after I mock myself for last year's mock draft. I put Ryan Nassib at #8 in the first round. I had the #6 overall pick go at #20 (though I said I think logically and Rob Chudzinski thinks "Chud-like" so maybe that should have been my tip-off to not use logic). I put Jesse Williams in the first round. I put D.J. Hayden at #31 and Justin Hunter at #32.

Interestingly, (or maybe not interestingly) I got more picks AFTER the Top-15 correct then I did in the Top-15. It takes a special sort of semi-informed stupidity to do that. I got one pick right in the Top-15 and three picks right in spots #16-#32. So maybe there is hope for me. I always promise I'm going to predict trades next year, but it's hard enough to predict which players will go in which spot, much less guess which of the NFL teams will trade up. I'm not even sure I can get one pick right in this year's draft. Trades are going to happen and it's nearly impossible to predict them. As Peter King would say, THIS IS THE MOST UNPREDICTABLE NFL DRAFT SINCE LAST YEAR'S DRAFT!

So hopefully I will do better than last year, and remember, every draft pick is brilliant until the time comes to prove that brilliance on the field. I have to say that the draft being pushed back two weeks was a bad idea. I understand the NFL will still get great ratings and so they will further push the draft back or keep it where it is in early May, but it's just too much draft talk. I want the draft to occur in late April again, but we all know the NFL will probably push it back again next year.

Since you aren't probably tired of mock drafts at this point...

1. Houston Texans- Jadeveon Clowney, DE

I know there are rumors Khalil Mack could be taken in this spot. I think it's going to be and should be Clowney. At worst Clowney is going to be a really good defensive lineman and at his best he will be an All-Pro six or seven times. I just don't think he has a really low floor and his ceiling is high. Combining him with J.J. Watt seems like a really, really good idea. Plus, the Texans are on the same division as Andrew Luck and it's always a good idea to have two great pass rushers to throw at a really good quarterback. Clowney took plays off in college. So did Julius Peppers and so do most college football players. The Texans shouldn't overthink this one.

2. St. Louis Rams-  Greg Robinson, T

I don't think the Rams keep this pick. They are open for business, as Peter King has told us on a weekly basis. I'm notoriously a big fan of offensive linemen in the draft. I think the best way to build a winning team is to build up the offensive/defensive lines. Protect your quarterback and rush the opposing quarterback. Robinson seems to be the best linemen in this draft and whoever is the quarterback for the Rams next year, plus he's a monster in the running game. If the Rams keep this pick, then Robinson should be the pick. If Bradford is the Rams quarterback then keeping him healthy is going to be very important.

3. Jacksonville Jaguars- Johnny Manziel, QB

I know, I know...there is no buzz for this pick. The Jaguars GM has said Manziel was the most pro-ready of all the quarterbacks in this draft and this really is a need for the Jaguars. Supposedly the Browns aren't taking Manziel, so maybe the Rams/Jaguars are starting those rumors in order to get trade offers at the #2/#3 spot, but I think the Jaguars need for a quarterback leads them to Manziel. Gus Bradley is a defensive guy, but his experience in Seattle would not stop him from taking a shorter quarterback if that's the guy he likes. I'm not a huge Manziel fan, but he would sell tickets and an argument can easily be made that he's the best quarterback in this draft (I think it's Teddy Bridgewater, but what do I know?). I think the Jaguars go quarterback because they understand they will have to possibly trade up back into the first round to get the quarterback they want, so why not take the one they consider most pro-ready and creates excitement? 

4. Cleveland Browns- Sammy Watkins, WR

Well, the last time the Browns were at #4 with two first round picks they took a skill position player and tried to get a quarterback later in the first round. That didn't work out so well. So fuck it, maybe they should try it again. What could it hurt? I don't think Watkins will end up being the best wide receiver in this draft, but having him and Gordon across from each other is a good way to put a scare into opposing teams. Throw in Jordan Cameron and whoever the quarterback is next year for the Browns has the weapons to work with.  The Browns obviously have other positions of need and Mike Evans could be in play here too, but I think they take the guy considered the best receiver in the draft to pair up with Josh Gordon. Quarterback is a need, but I'm not convinced any of the quarterbacks (outside of Bridgewater, who I love) is a better option at this spot. Don't reach.

5. Oakland Raiders- Mike Evans, WR

I feel this way about Mike Evans for the same reason I mocked Darrius Heyward-Bey to the Raiders a few years ago. It just feels like a Raiders pick. Evans is younger, raw, talented, and has all the physical characteristics a team wants in a wide receiver. I'm tempted to put Manziel here because that would cause the Internet to explode with Raiders fans cheering for the polarizing Manziel on a weekly basis, but I'm not that fortunate for that to occur. Of course if the Browns are really down on Manziel and the Jags take Khalil Mack or Blake Bortles, Manziel could be a Raider. The Raiders receivers weren't terrible last year, but there wasn't a #1 receiver on the roster, so Evans could end up being that guy. Maybe Matt Schaub can call back some magic from his and Andre Johnson's earlier playing days together with Evans. At worst, Evans will stay in great shape chasing after cornerbacks who have intercepted a pass from Schaub, trying to help prevent Schaub from throwing another pick-six. 

6. Atlanta Falcons- Jake Matthews, T

I can see the Falcons going offensive line here with visions still fresh of the beating Ryan took during games against NFC South opponents last year. Matthews would be a great choice in this spot and it never hurts to have more protection for Matt Ryan. Mack could also be the choice, but I think the need to protect Ryan slightly outweighs the need for another playmaker on defense. Matthews is a ten-year starter at tackle. Not a bad choice. 

7. Tampa Bay Buccaneers- Khalil Mack, LB

This annoys me. I don't want the Buccaneers to get Mack. I don't want Chris Berman to potentially say "Return of the Mack" and I don't want the Buccaneers to get Mack. At that point, they will have an absolutely stellar group of linebackers with Foster, David and Mack. Considering the Buccaneers head coach is Lovie Smith who has had success in the past with an elite linebacking unit, I can easily see the Buccaneers making this pick over a quarterback. I don't think the Bucs would draft a quarterback after Lovie announced Josh McCown as the starter and Mike Glennon is still on the roster (for now).

8. Minnesota Vikings- Aaron Donald, DT

I must admit, this is a purely gut feeling I have. I don't think Rick Spielman is going to feel good about taking any quarterbacks at this point in the draft and he will want to rebuild the "Williams Wall" with Donald and Floyd. I think too many quarterbacks are going to go in the first round than probably deserve to go in the first round, but I also think there will be a good QB available in the second round for the Vikings to take as well. The best way to help a shaky QB situation is to give that QB a great defense and the Vikings are in a position to do that. I wouldn't be so dramatic as to say Spielman is on the hot seat, but I don't think he'll take a quarterback in this spot unless he's certain he has the right guy. Plus, the Vikings just hired a defensive coach. 

9. Buffalo Bills- Odell Beckham, WR

I'm probably making a mistake here, but there is a lot of chatter among the Bills fans on Twitter that the team loves Beckham. Yes, I'm sort of basing this pick on what I'm hearing from sources who don't possibly know jackshit. Either way, the pick makes sense. E.J. Manuel needs another receiver and if the Bills don't go with Lewan there are worse picks to make than a receiver for Manuel. Beckham also has the dreaded "late riser" label, which ultimately means he will probably go in the 3rd round. Also, if Chris Berman uses any form of "Bend it Like Beckham" when this pick is made I'm going to poison my coffee with anti-freeze tomorrow. I can't live in a world like that. 

10. Detroit Lions- Justin Gilbert, CB

I feel like I have mocked a corner to the Lions for all of eternity. Maybe I should realize either (a) it's not a need or (b) they aren't drafting a corner every year in the first round. Either way, with new coach Jim Caldwell (insert passive-aggressive comment about his coaching record here) I don't know what to expect with this pick. I will say I think drafting a wide receiver is a mistake. It's Matt Millen-esque when there are plenty of other choices that would be better in this spot. The corners right now are Chris Houston and Rashean Mathis. You can't tell me a ball-hawk like Gilbert shouldn't be taken here. In fact, take an offensive tackle here or take a safety like Pryor, Ward, or Clinton-Dix. Don't take another receiver. It would be fun to watch, but it's also needless. It shouldn't come as a shock that Caldwell wants a strong offense since he's an offensive coach. His teams at Wake Forest were notorious for putting up points but not playing any defense. So he'll probably go there again. 

11. Tennessee Titans- Kyle Fuller, CB

I feel like the Titans lose a corner in free agency every single year. I know Whisenhunt is an offensive coach and the Titans may be a dark horse candidate to take a QB here, but they need assistance in the secondary and I actually like Fuller more than I like Gilbert. I can't help but wonder if Whisenhunt may end up going with a tight end in this spot, though it seems REALLY early for Ebron. Of course Anthony Barr would probably also fit, but when looking at the Titans roster and seeing their needs, I think a cornerback is the pick.

12. New York Giants- Taylor Lewan, T

This makes sense, right? Lewan has off-the-field troubles and the Giants probably could use another pass-rusher to replace Justin Tuck (though they do have Moore and signed Robert Ayers), but I think Lewan will still be the pick. Tight end is a need here as well, but after a season where Eli Manning struggled and threw quite a few interceptions there is nothing wrong with giving him some more protection. The Giants did draft a tackle last year too, so maybe I'm way off, but I think the best way to help Eli bounce back this year is to shore up his offensive line. 

13. St. Louis Rams- Bradley Roby, CB

A troubled but talented cornerback (Adam Jones, Janoris Jenkins) could be drafted by Jeff Fisher? No way. Jeff Fisher thinks he could take any player and provide him the environment to succeed and even though Roby getting lit up by Abbrederis is constantly brought up, the talent certainly seems to be here. The Rams would be very talented at the corner position if Roby is the pick, though I'm sure it's tempting to maybe pick a safety or offensive linemen in this spot. Either way it ends up, we know Peter King will tell us it was a great pick and Jeff "8-8" Fisher will be on track for another season of his friends in the media telling us how the Rams are a team on the rise.  

14. Chicago Bears- Ra'Shede Hageman, DT

The Bears current defensive tackles are Tracy Robertson and Jay Ratliff. I got the chance to see Hageman shut down quite a few really good running teams in college (obviously not by himself) and I think he will fit what the Bears seem to want out of a defensive tackle, which is to take up space and get penetration (fine, every team wants that). This seems like a really good pick. Hageman helps the Bears get a little younger on defense and will help create pressure from the middle in a division with Stafford and Rodgers. 

15. Pittsburgh Steelers- Zack Martin, G/T

Martin can supposedly play nearly every position on the offensive line. This will really come in handy for a team who has had problems injuries at interior line positions and as well as difficulty with offensive tackles getting stabbed on occasion. Roethlisberger seems to enjoy running for his life, but it wouldn't hurt the Steelers to draft an offensive lineman who can play multiple positions in case they need that flexibility as the season goes on and injuries inevitably occur. The Steelers do seem to catch a falling star every year in the draft, so if they grab a guy whose fallen then I could see Blake Bor---I'm just kidding---Anthony Barr in this spot.

16. Dallas Cowboys- Eric Ebron, TE

This pick is probably wrong. It just seems to fit for me though. The Cowboys aren't taking a quarterback, but they do need some help on defense, so that very well could be the direction they go in. Still, I have this feeling...Tony Romo was throwing to Cole Beasley for a while last year due to injuries in the receiving group and Witten is not getting any younger. Ebron has his negatives, but he also can be lined up as a receiver like other elite tight ends in the NFL. So he's not necessarily going to struggle for playing time behind Witten if he can be split-wide. This pick probably won't happen, but knowing Jerry Jones this seems like a big upside pick that he would make to avoid Cole Beasley being on the field too much. 

17. Baltimore Ravens- Calvin Pryor, S

The Ravens other safety with Matt Elam is Anthony Levine. That is all. I know it's tempting to mock a tight end or another spot here, but the Ravens would really have a set of good safeties with Pryor and Elam. This is a typical Ravens pick. They get a guy who fits a need and also will contribute early in his career. Also, on a personal note I saw Steve Smith on the Ravens depth chart and did a double take. Doesn't seem right quite yet. My dark horse in this spot is Blake Bor---I'm kidding again---C.J. Mosley in case the Ravens want to go the whole "leadership and college production" route at the linebacker spot. 

18. New York Jets- Darqueze Dennard, CB

The Jets could really use some help on offense to give Geno Smith or Mike Vick a fighting chance, but Rex Ryan does like his defensive players and he really likes his cornerbacks. It doesn't hurt the Jets could use another corner. I don't think it's a bad move necessarily because defense has been Ryan's calling card and he's certainly won playoff games with a mediocre quarterback and a great defense. It would be funny for comedy's sake if the Jets took a quarterback here. Those idiot Jets fans at the draft would go ballistic.

19. Miami Dolphins- Morgan Moses, T

I've gone back and forth on this pick. Tannehill needs to be protected but are the Dolphins really going to reach for a tackle at this point in the draft? I feel like any tackle drafted here is a reach, but the Dolphins really, really, really need offensive line help. It's either take an OL here and reach or wait and possibly try to trade up for a lineman. I think the Dolphins just take the lineman they need here. I did have Anthony Barr mocked at this spot, for no other reason than if the Dolphins are going to be passing over an offensive lineman I can see them taking the most talented defensive player available. I re-thought this because they really, really need to protect Tannehill.

20. Arizona Cardinals- Blake Bortles, QB

He's going in the first round. I do not like Bortles at all, but he looks like a QB and played well in the  BCS bowl game. That's enough to get him a first round slot. The Cardinals have been looking for a quarterback since Kurt Warner retired and they now have Carson Palmer. What could be better than having Palmer and knowing they already have Palmer's replacement on the roster? They don't have to throw Bortles in immediately and can him bring him along slower as will probably be required. It's a good situation for Bortles and the Cardinals. They have other needs, but the chance to get a franchise quarterback can not be overlooked in this spot.

21. Green Bay Packers- Ha Ha Clinton Dix, S

The Packers do have Sean Richardson so Clinton Dix is a luxury (laughs to himself). The Packers need to get better at the safety position and they most likely want to get faster since they have been shown up by Colin Kaepernick quite a few times. Clinton Dix (or is it just Dix?) helps to make the Packers faster on defense and also serves as the ball-hawk they need in the secondary. I think this pick makes sense, which means it won't happen. 

22. Philadelphia Eagles- Ryan Shazier, OLB

The Eagles need to improve on defense and Shazier is another dreaded "late riser" who looks like he'll be a really good NFL player. Of course looks can be deceiving. The Eagles have to improve their defense so I think the need for a receiver like Cooks can be pushed back another round. I am always a little nervous about guys who rise late in the draft like Shazier has done, but I think he makes more sense for the Eagles needs than a receiver would at this point in the draft. 

23. Kansas City Chiefs- Brandin Cooks, WR

The playoff game against the Colts aside, let's not get confused. The Chiefs needed another receiver for the majority of last season. I don't believe the Chiefs will draft a QB in this spot because they can't sign Alex Smith to an extension, though that seems like something that would happen to Alex Smith. He can't seem to be good enough to where he isn't getting replaced. There's always something that causes him to be replaced, whether it be an injury or his wanting to be paid like he believes he deserves to be paid. Cooks would give the Chiefs a slot receiver that Dexter McCluster never turned into and helps them get more explosive on offense. I think drafting a guard like Sua' Filo or Marcus Martin is probably an outside possibility here too. 

24. Cincinnati Bengals- Kony Ealy, DE

The Bengals lost Michael Johnson in free agency and Ealy seems to be a good replacement for him. I guess cornerback is a possibility here, though I'm not sure there is a corner worth taking outside of Jason Verrett, who is really good, but I'm not sure that's the Bengals biggest need. They could use another pass rusher and Ealy is the defensive lineman from Missouri who hasn't gotten as much press of late, but is more talented than Michael Sam. There are other needs but I think the Bengals go with the best available pass rusher. 

25. San Diego Chargers- Kelvin Benjamin, WR

It seems Louis Nix is the popular choice in this spot. It makes sense because he's a nose tackle and the Chargers could use a fatty up front to occupy blockers. Benjamin seems almost like a luxury pick considering the Chargers don't have a terrible receiving group, but for some reason I think the Chargers are going to give Rivers another offensive guy in this draft. Benjamin would be a big red zone target and has the much-coveted "upside," so I think the Chargers needs at nose tackle could wait until another round in favor of making sure Rivers has another blue chip receiver to complement Keenan Allen. It's another gut feeling I have, so I completely expect the Chargers to draft Teddy Bridgewater or trade the pick and make me look stupid.

26. Cleveland Browns (The "Trent Richardson was totally worth it to the Colts" pick)- C.J. Mosley, LB 

I had Bridgewater here, but I'm a fool who actually believes the Browns aren't interested in him. The Browns took care of the opposite receiver spot from Josh Gordon with the last pick and I think they will replace Craig Robertson with Mosley. Mike Pettine is a defensive coach so I don't doubt the Browns are going to get a defensive player with one of these picks, should they keep both first round draft picks. This is the area where trades often happen so I fully expect picks #26-#32 to have at least one (possibly two) trade occur within those picks. So I would not be surprised to see any of those picks traded. If the Browns keep this then I see them going with Mosley who I am not sure will fall even this far in the draft. I would feel pretty good about this pick if I were a Browns fan.

27. New Orleans Saints- Marcus Martin, C/G

The Saints are pretty set at guard, but they could use a center. I'm not sure Tim Lelito is the answer at the center position. Martin can play both guard and center and it's very important to keep internal pressure from being in Drew Brees' face. His height isn't an issue necessarily, but the best way to beat a quarterback is to get pressure in his face and that goes double for a quarterback who is six-feet tall. It's not a sexy pick or the pass rusher/wide receiver that I know will make waves and lead the talking heads to say, "Drew Brees/Rob Ryan got another weapon" and then wax hyperbolic for a few minutes. Martin projects to be a good offensive lineman and the Saints have a need at the center position. If they don't trade back, then I think Martin is the guy. 

28. Carolina Panthers- Marqise Lee, WR (Xavier Su'a Filo, G)

It's my favorite team, I can cheat if I want to. In this mock draft, I have the Panthers taking Marqise Lee, but I put Su'a Filo's name in there too. The Panthers GM is dedicated to taking the best player available. If this means best player available on the team's draft board at a position of need, then that's Marqise Lee, if that means the best player on the team's draft board then I think that will be Su'a Filo. The consensus seems to be the Panthers don't need help at the guard position, but I think that could change if the best guard in the draft is still out there. I have beaten the drum for a while that wide receiver is much, much smaller need than offensive line. There is a real chance Cam Newton will be murdered by a pass rusher next year. It's problem #1 for the team, but all the great tackles are gone, so I have no idea if the team will go with a "blue goose" (it's a weird team the GM uses) wide receiver or a "blue goose" offensive lineman at a position of lesser need. I say it's a receiver if Lee fails this far, though I hate myself for mocking a wide receiver in this spot. It's just how my mock fell. What does "best player available" really mean anyway?

29. New England Patriots- Jace Amaro, TE

This pick gives me an ulcer. It feels like a cop-out. I believe the Patriots will be one of those teams heavy in the trade market to move back, but Tom Brady needs receivers. Gronkowski is injury-prone, Aaron Hernandez isn't leaving jail anytime soon and there were too many games last year where the Brady didn't have reliable targets. The Patriots have run double tight end sets before with Hernandez and Gronkowski, so Amaro would work fine if Gronk stays healthy. He will give Brady a consistent weapon in the middle of the field or that can split wide to create room for receivers over the middle. The Patriots could take Dominique Easley here. Easley has an injury history but has Top-15 potential, while the Patriots could him a year to recover and stay healthy if necessary. I just think they need to work on giving Brady more offensive guys so he isn't throwing to unreliable receivers and Austin Collie doesn't play a big role at the end of games.

30. San Francisco 49ers- Jason Verrett, CB

If they keep this pick I think this is the pick. San Francisco doesn't have a ton of needs, but one of their big needs is a corner who can cover the slot. They also could use another receiver and I could see Dominique Easley being taken here as well, but I think the value for Verrett and what he will provide the 49ers is why he'll be the pick. If Verrett were taller then I think he would be considered to be the top corner in the draft, but alas, he is not tall enough. I know it's tempting to mock a taller corner here, but Verrett fits what the 49ers currently need (and he isn't afraid to tackle) and from what I've seen from him at TCU he plays taller than 5'9". 

31. Denver Broncos- Joel Bitonio, OL

I know. Boring. Wouldn't the Broncos like to go defense since they struggled defensively in the Super Bowl? Well, I know a little bit about John Fox and I know he likes his offensive linemen as much as he likes his defensive players. Bitonio can play multiple offensive line positions and while it seems drafting him goes against the "win-now" mentality of the Broncos, I think it fits in perfectly with that mentality. As we saw in the Super Bowl, Manning can't do it all if he doesn't have protection, so the Broncos draft a versatile, athletic offensive lineman who can shore up the Broncos protection and fill in at various spots on the line in case of injuries.

32. Seattle Seahawks- Gabe Jackson, G

If the Seahawks keep this pick (repeat after me...), then I think guard is a glaring need for them. They already didn't pick up James Carpenter's fifth year option. This may mean nothing, but the Seahawks a run-based team and I can completely see Jackson opening up holes for Marshawn Lynch. Jackson isn't the highest-rated player on the board at this point, but the Seahawks have a history of drafting guys who fit their needs and not worrying too much about what others may think. Jackson is an absolute mauler when he wants to be and I think he fits the Seahawks needs well. Of course this pick makes too much sense so I don't think it will happen.

Feel free to tell me how smart or dumb I am in the comments. I realize there will be 10 quarterbacks drafted in the first round because teams are going to panic and try to get their "franchise guy" by reaching for a quarterback, but I'm not confident enough to pick out where these quarterbacks will end up. I hate trades. Trades mess up a mock draft.