I’m not sure when or why Bill Simmons -- known in the writing world as "The Sports Guy" -- came to hate the Washington Redskins, but it’s become pretty obvious over the last few years of reading his columns that he most definitely does. In fact, I think he’s made it rather clear that he isn’t too fond of any other of DC's sports teams, either.
Simmons continuously rips on the Wizards, despite the fact that they’ve made the playoffs for the past 4 seasons and have had a broader range of success in that span than his beloved Celtics (pre-Garnett, of course).
He’d blast the Capitals if he had the chance, I’m sure, but aside from the Bruins, he admittedly knows very little about hockey. (Besides, given the fact that the Caps have one of the most promising young teams in the NHL and the game’s most exciting player, he’d be spewing nothing but nonsense if he trashed George McPhee or Ted Leonsis.)
Major League Baseball is a different story, as the Nationals are irrelevant and it’s hard to argue with the recent success of the Sox. I don’t think I’d bat an eye or get remotely upset if he chose to rip their situation apart, as he wouldn’t be the first to do so.
So where does this hatred of our Nation’s capital come from?
Maybe little Billy took a class trip to DC when he was in middle school -- which, growing up on the East Coast, I’m sure he did -- and got separated from the group at the Washington Monument. Maybe he had a relationship with a girl who went to GW, Georgetown or Catholic and she dumped him after realizing a) he was slightly weasel-like, b) he didn’t have a whole lot to offer and c) he cared about nothing but Boston-area sports.
Regardless of the reason, The Sports Guy simply doesn’t like our franchises (or, as far as I’m concerned, our city). He especially doesn’t like the Burgundy and Gold, as he rarely, if ever, spends more than a sentence or two discussing the games in which they play when he does his “weekly picks” column for ESPN.com.
This isn’t the first time I’ve thought this, so before you think that I’m basing everything on today’s column, allow me to explain...
Even when the Redskins have found themselves with a little bit of confidence and respect from other teams in the league -- which hasn’t been often, as they’ve teetered on the brink of mediocrity since 1993 -- the Sports Guy has never given them credit. In fact, more often than not, he’ll simply start by saying something random about their opponent and then go off on a completely unrelated tangent (like he so often does in his increasingly similar columns).
Simmons continuously rips on the Wizards, despite the fact that they’ve made the playoffs for the past 4 seasons and have had a broader range of success in that span than his beloved Celtics (pre-Garnett, of course).
He’d blast the Capitals if he had the chance, I’m sure, but aside from the Bruins, he admittedly knows very little about hockey. (Besides, given the fact that the Caps have one of the most promising young teams in the NHL and the game’s most exciting player, he’d be spewing nothing but nonsense if he trashed George McPhee or Ted Leonsis.)
Major League Baseball is a different story, as the Nationals are irrelevant and it’s hard to argue with the recent success of the Sox. I don’t think I’d bat an eye or get remotely upset if he chose to rip their situation apart, as he wouldn’t be the first to do so.
So where does this hatred of our Nation’s capital come from?
Maybe little Billy took a class trip to DC when he was in middle school -- which, growing up on the East Coast, I’m sure he did -- and got separated from the group at the Washington Monument. Maybe he had a relationship with a girl who went to GW, Georgetown or Catholic and she dumped him after realizing a) he was slightly weasel-like, b) he didn’t have a whole lot to offer and c) he cared about nothing but Boston-area sports.
Regardless of the reason, The Sports Guy simply doesn’t like our franchises (or, as far as I’m concerned, our city). He especially doesn’t like the Burgundy and Gold, as he rarely, if ever, spends more than a sentence or two discussing the games in which they play when he does his “weekly picks” column for ESPN.com.
This isn’t the first time I’ve thought this, so before you think that I’m basing everything on today’s column, allow me to explain...
Even when the Redskins have found themselves with a little bit of confidence and respect from other teams in the league -- which hasn’t been often, as they’ve teetered on the brink of mediocrity since 1993 -- the Sports Guy has never given them credit. In fact, more often than not, he’ll simply start by saying something random about their opponent and then go off on a completely unrelated tangent (like he so often does in his increasingly similar columns).
There’s nothing that says “I don’t give two shits about your franchise” than completely ignoring them, as far as I’m concerned. Take this snippet from a column before last year’s Week 2 games, for example:
EAGLES (-7) over Redskins
Big game for Donovan McNabb, even bigger game for Andy Reid. And since I can’t think of anything else to say, do you think Andy Roddick has ever thought about having Roger Federer killed? He’s definitely thought about it a few times, right? Maybe after about 10 drinks, but he’s definitely thought about it. You can’t convince me otherwise.
This little gem is from a "professional sportswriter," mind you, one who gets front-page treatment on ESPN.com when his weekly picks come out. Yes, I know he doesn’t claim to offer an analyst’s opinion, and that most readers probably read his columns more for his humor than his knowledge, but at some point it gets ridiculous.
In today’s column, Simmons had this to say about the Redskins (who he ranked 17th in his "weekly power poll"):
In today’s column, Simmons had this to say about the Redskins (who he ranked 17th in his "weekly power poll"):
They just beat the Saints and Cardinals, so, um ... yeah. You know what scares me about the Redskins other than the fact Dan Snyder is a stubbier, less successful Mark Cuban? Poor Jim Zorn looks like he's wound tighter than a substitute teacher at Watts High. And it's not like a Mike Shanahan thing in which it looks like he's trying to melt a referee's brain; it's more of a "Don Draper running into an old friend from the Korean war back when everyone called him Dicky" type of nervous intensity, like he's battling a complex about never having been a head coach before. If Dallas beats the Skins by 25 this Sunday, I could see Zorn screaming, "I'm in charge here! OK? All right? I am the one in charge!!!!!!" and losing the locker room for good. He should start drinking red wine during games. I don't see this ending well.
Never mind the fact that a lot of sportswriters are quick to criticize the Burgundy and Gold -- that’s fine. There are always going to be skeptics, people who may know a little something that the fans don’t or people that look more at the past than the present.
What Simmons is saying, however, is not true. Yes, Jim Zorn looked terrified against the Giants in the Meadowlands in Week One -- I even said so myself on this very site, and I can imagine that most first-time coaches would have butterflies the size of pterodactyls if their first game was nationally-televised, in New York and against the defending Super Bowl champions.
For the past two games, however, he has looked as comfortable as anyone could in just his second and third games as The Man. His play-calling has improved tremendously, his demeanor has been calm when necessary; fired-up and overly passionate when required. But the most important fact of all -- which Simmons is hinting at but clearly has no idea what he’s talking about -- is the potential for Zorn to lose the faith of his players. Barring the most knuckleheaded coaching decisions -- calling all 3 timeouts in the first 30 seconds, putting Shaun Suisham under center, keeping Durant Brooks -- that potential simply doesn’t exist.
Even if the Redskins come out on Sunday and completely lay an egg against Dallas (which they won’t), I don’t see anyone’s attitude changing. Since the man who invented the “Z-shades” entered training camp, there has been nothing but talk of complete respect and admiration for one of the few people who has ever succeeded a coach whose bust is already in Canton. Players seem to go out of their way to praise Zorn’s attitude, work ethic, reliability, tenacity, smarts and overall character. They think he has what it takes to be a great coach in this league, and if his development through 3 weeks is any indication, it’s hard to argue with them.
Simmons is a decent writer, I will give him that. His act has gotten extremely stale and his head increasingly large over the past few years, but that may be more ESPN’s fault than his -- after all, they are the ones that are treating him like an Oscar-winning director when his body of work consists of Porky’s and the American Pie Trilogy. What he does with the position he’s in, however, is on him.
You can insert humor into nearly any topic of conversation, as far as I’m concerned, but there’s a definite line between which is the more important objective. Are you trying to be funny and just a little bit analytical, or are you trying to offer some serious insight and show that you have a good sense of humor?
Since the increased presence of blogging, writers like Matt Mosley of ESPN.com often incorporate wisecracks into their analysis, as it keeps readers interested and breaks up the monotony of answering technical questions and breaking down X’s and O’s.
Bill Simmons, it’s quite obvious, is trying to be the funny man, so my plea to him is this:
Stay away from anything related to predictions or rankings, Sports Guy. In fact, stay away from anything that involves serious insight into the games we love. It’s painfully obvious that your knowledge exists in a bubble, so do us all a favor and stick to writing about pop culture and stop hating on our teams. I’d like to take your columns for what they’re worth, but when you insult my beloved Burgundy and Gold, you make it increasingly hard to do so.
What Simmons is saying, however, is not true. Yes, Jim Zorn looked terrified against the Giants in the Meadowlands in Week One -- I even said so myself on this very site, and I can imagine that most first-time coaches would have butterflies the size of pterodactyls if their first game was nationally-televised, in New York and against the defending Super Bowl champions.
For the past two games, however, he has looked as comfortable as anyone could in just his second and third games as The Man. His play-calling has improved tremendously, his demeanor has been calm when necessary; fired-up and overly passionate when required. But the most important fact of all -- which Simmons is hinting at but clearly has no idea what he’s talking about -- is the potential for Zorn to lose the faith of his players. Barring the most knuckleheaded coaching decisions -- calling all 3 timeouts in the first 30 seconds, putting Shaun Suisham under center, keeping Durant Brooks -- that potential simply doesn’t exist.
Even if the Redskins come out on Sunday and completely lay an egg against Dallas (which they won’t), I don’t see anyone’s attitude changing. Since the man who invented the “Z-shades” entered training camp, there has been nothing but talk of complete respect and admiration for one of the few people who has ever succeeded a coach whose bust is already in Canton. Players seem to go out of their way to praise Zorn’s attitude, work ethic, reliability, tenacity, smarts and overall character. They think he has what it takes to be a great coach in this league, and if his development through 3 weeks is any indication, it’s hard to argue with them.
Simmons is a decent writer, I will give him that. His act has gotten extremely stale and his head increasingly large over the past few years, but that may be more ESPN’s fault than his -- after all, they are the ones that are treating him like an Oscar-winning director when his body of work consists of Porky’s and the American Pie Trilogy. What he does with the position he’s in, however, is on him.
You can insert humor into nearly any topic of conversation, as far as I’m concerned, but there’s a definite line between which is the more important objective. Are you trying to be funny and just a little bit analytical, or are you trying to offer some serious insight and show that you have a good sense of humor?
Since the increased presence of blogging, writers like Matt Mosley of ESPN.com often incorporate wisecracks into their analysis, as it keeps readers interested and breaks up the monotony of answering technical questions and breaking down X’s and O’s.
Bill Simmons, it’s quite obvious, is trying to be the funny man, so my plea to him is this:
Stay away from anything related to predictions or rankings, Sports Guy. In fact, stay away from anything that involves serious insight into the games we love. It’s painfully obvious that your knowledge exists in a bubble, so do us all a favor and stick to writing about pop culture and stop hating on our teams. I’d like to take your columns for what they’re worth, but when you insult my beloved Burgundy and Gold, you make it increasingly hard to do so.
Posts
I went to read Bill Simmon's article for the first time, and for the last time.
ReplyDeleteThe man is neither funny nor particularly educated about the sports world. Wise-cracks about a team does not really mean that you know anything about them, just that you can remember a funny line you heard from someone sometime.
Way to remember those lines Bill, you are the poster child for why I don't watch, read, or have anything to do with ESPN anymore.
ESPN is the MTV of Sports, just like it would be nice if MTV was actually about music, it would be nice if ESPN was actually about the game and less about the drama.
Awesome post.
ReplyDelete